Welcome to the United Paranoid States of America!

[MoscowSummerNights]

Thanks. I will copy your post above about IMBRA and send it to my list, ok?

Yes, please do that.

What city and state is this court case about IMBRA taking place?

Absolutely no case is under way. At the website http://www.onlinedatingrights.com, the moderator is either too busy with his own life or actively trying to make sure the site does not get Google hits. Only about 10 men have ever really congregated there and the moderator herds them into doing precisely nothing.

I am a businessman who believes in getting results on any endeavor. I would waste my time posting on any website that does not achieve Google hit status for every thread.

Also, there are too many men who would rather complain about feminism than take clear action ending in results. There are federal and local judges waiting to rule against feminism if we only gave them a chance to. But, because in a few cases, feminist judges ruled against males, too many men in the MRM decide not to try the courts.

The MRM seems to be a group of males who often think completely differently from each other (for instance social conservatives and libertarians often think entirely differently) and they end up not organizing or working together to get anything to happen. Marc Rudov and I simply cannot stand each other. Check out http://www.mensnewsdaily.com to see the movement is fractured and top-heavy with John McCain supporters (McCain and his Christian evangelist friend Senator Sam Brownback are enthusiastic supporters of IMBRA, VAWA and all feminist lawmaking.

There is a challenge against VAWA going on right now where Roy den Hollander and a few other men married foreign women scammers and brought them to the USA, only to watch the women make false claims of abuse and get federally funded women's shelters to support their lies and give them quick and automatic US Citizenship and money.

The case is being brought by a plaintiff who is a lawyer, Roy Den Hollander whose wife immediately became a stripper after she arrived in the USA and he later learned that she had been working for the organization that managed the strip joints before she came to the US.

He is asking the federal government to do something now that he PROVED that this happened the way he said it happened.

Who else beside you are behind this project? Any lawyers?

I know about 3 good lawyers in the New York and Washington areas who would do a challenge for about $25,000. That is too much money for me and the few guys who know about and care to stop IMBRA. Maybe a wider audience can raise that kind of money.

Natasha Spivack, the owners of Encounters International that notoriously lost to the feminists in federal court (she was held liable because a man allegedly beat his wife), will help anyone in a trial as I would.

I can send over about 10 guys to this site tomorrow to introduce themselves. Some are guys living abroad like we are and some are corporate execs inside the USA. None of us are apparently in a position where we can walk into a federal courthouse and give our real name and complain about a law.

But Den Hollander, the lawyer in NYC, will not deal with IMBRA probably because he is not interested in dealing with foreign women again. I found him hard to get along with personally as well (you cannot expect a man who unknowingly married a con-artist stripper to have much social skills).

You would be surprised at how many men in the MRM have sworn off dating foreign women because they think they are all scammers and whores.

I feel so sorry for such men. They hate the American feminists and they hate foreign women even more.

So posting on anti-feminist sites often gets no sympathy.

Posting on conservative sites often gets the response that "men who date foreign women are sex tourists and perverts".

The owners of international dating sites actually appreciate not being allowed to sell women's contact information because they can make more money by forcing men to wait a long time before meeting women online and they earn more money from men who are rejected or simply never get a response from a woman who had to read his background and sign a document. They cry crocodile tears about IMBRA and the big bad government...but because IMBRA prolongs the amount of time a man would have to hang around a website, the owners never try to do anything about IMBRA. The owner of the Russian Women Dating forum wants to be liked by the feminists who have infiltrated his forum and he also wants to be liked by an American man from Italy who regularly posts and insists that men SHOULD be background checked to protect foreign women.

It is politically correct in the USA to say that women should be protected via the regulation of males.

Those that sell $3000 tours want men to have no choice but to come meet women in person where the women sign IMBRA affidavits at the door when parties are arranged. Thus, these owners are doing precisely nothing about IMBRA after some of them grouped together to make 2 intensely incompetent challenges in 2006 that resulted in judges saying:

1) Meeting someone is like buying a gun, both should require background checks.

2) There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner.

[Winston]

Hi MoscowSummerNights,

Sure, send those ten guys here and have them introduce themselves and share what we can learn from their lives.

Does IMBRA say anything about the way guys like me meet foreign girls in person while overseas, the old fashioned way?

How come the big dating sites here in the Philippines say nothing about IMBRA requirements? For example, http://www.blossoms.com says nothing about it on their main page. If you give your email or yahoo messenger username to the girls, the site does nothing about it, but they discourage you from doing it too early on.

Where do you live now? Are you married to a foreign woman? If so, from where?

[MoscowSummerNights]

If you look above to the two main points that judges have so far decided regarding IMBRA, you can see that, if the US Government had the technology to do so, they WOULD interfere with an American man walking up to Filipinas on a beach in the Philippines by warning the Filipinas that the man might be dangerous.

It has been established that:

1) Meeting someone online is like buying a gun: both should require background checks of the person purchasing a service (commerce clause).

2) There is no fundamental right for an American to communicate with a foreigner (the US government has the right to stop you from speaking with foreigners).

Now Winston: If either of those two principles are those you or any of your readers could "live with"...we are all in trouble, even if you and I and many of your members are living outside of the USA.

Remember that the US Government is almost the only government in the world that considers its citizens to be subject to its laws even when they do not live inside their country of citizenship. The "Protect Act" for instance is almost the only law in the world that gves an age of consent to its citizens outside the country (as if foreign jurisdictions are not social conservative and/or feminist enough to be relied on to implement justice for criminals).

IMBRA right now is being taken by the Department of Homeland Security to mean that they can post on US Embassy websites a warning to foreign women not to meet American men on dating websites.

The deadline is September 19 for comments on the wording of this warning.

Please everyone go to http://www.Regulations.gov and do a search for IMBRA. Then read the text and submit a comment to the government about how the wording of the IMBRA text cannot slander either American males or dating websites. This means that the text of what is given to women at American embassies must not state that it is some kind of "fact" that foreign women face an "increased risk of domestic violence" from American men they meet online. There is no study that ever found anything but the opposite to be the case.

Blossoms is, thankfully, completely ignoring IMBRA just as most sites fail to comply fully...including the big one that seems to proudly state that it is IMBRA compliant on the front page as if that is supposed to encourage men to use their service (as if being IMBRA compliant is like stamping Grade A Beef on cattle).

If you are in Manila on a Saturday and you are leaving for the States on Monday, you will want to be able to phone a woman you see online who wants a man to pnone her. The sites, knowing that many women will have no access to email until they go to work or college on Monday, will often bend the rules and let you call the woman on the Saturday after which you can agree to meet that night or the next day.

IMBRA says that is highly illegal. If they ever enforce IMBRA, this will stop and many men will see themselves facing weekends in which they are blocked by US feminists from meeting a specific woman whom they want to meet.

Blossoms will not challenge IMBRA because probably one of their 20,000 customers over 20 years ended up abusing his wife. This is also why a dozen sites decided to drop their Ohio case against IMBRA: they did not want to be audited to see if one of their tens of thousands of clients ever turned out to be a wife abuser years later.

Sadly, Blossoms deleted all women years ago (before IMBRA made it a requirement) who did not want to participate regularly in webmail interaction with men, but instead wanted paper letters or phone calls. If a woman writes to a service now giving only her home address and phone number, her letter gets thrown away because IMBRA requires them to do this.

American men suffer from never having seen the woman's photo or profile. These women could have become good wives of thousands of American men.

For the sites, it is just easier to keep men paying monthly fees if all contact needs to go through webmail.

Several big sites had argued with each other and one big site's owner was accused of being also involved with pornography at some point. There is nothing wrong with being involved with pornography and, separately, having a dating site...but apparently that site owner believes it looks bad enough that they do not want to be the plaintiffs against IMBRA.

All sites completely ignored the Mail Order Bride Act (MOBA) after it was passed in 1996. MOBA requires that every woman on a dating site with mostly foreign women MUST be given a pamphlet in her own language stating her so-called rights if she should marry an American.

That was an outrageous law that should have been challenged 10 years ago...but it was ignored like IMBRA despite its vicious precedent of trying to hamper the business of introducing men to foreign women.

Last October, the US Senate voted to give $400 Million to feminist groups via the Office on Violence Against Women attached to the Justice Department. This authorized $1 Million to the Tahirih Justice Center to "enforce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act".

We can only hope that these feminists will just use the $1 Million to employ themselves and pay their rent for a year, while doing nothing but maybe defend themselves against a challenge that someone will make against them.

But you can be sure that they are also looking for some marginal website at the extreme somewhere that deals with prostitution or child porn.

We will need to attack them now on a field of battle of OUR chosing.

Otherwise they will attack us unexpectedly on a field of battle of THEIR chosing.

Men need to start thinking of feminists like a real enemy in a real war. They are out to attack and do damage to our interests. The only defense is a good offense.

[MoscowSummerNights]

I have been living in Germany and Russia but I am moving to Poland which is in between.

It is also more fun to date in Poland than in Germany where there is feminist pressure on young adult women to date their own age.

[Winston]

Hey Grunt, how about you? You live in the US and are passionate about your views against feminism. So you'd make a great candidate to fight IMBRA in court. What do you think?

[Chemist]

MoscowSummerNights,

I decided to reply to this in the forum for everyone's benefit.
I should warn you that I am a skeptic by nature. Winston, doesn't seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate a letter like the one you sent out, but I do. So you can fool Winston since he just cuts and pastes things that might support his agenda. And I have reason to believe that you simply copied and paste the infor about IMBRA from an anti-feminist site.

So you might be able to fool Winston and some of the other imbittered men here, but you can't fool me.

For the record, I am a man about Winston's age who is planning to bring a Russian fiancee into the USA on a K1 visa. My I129F has been approved a few weeks ago. IMBRA isn't imposing much of a burden on this process. You simply need to make sure that the sites you are visiting are in compliance with IMBRA. And all the legitimate sites have talked about it.

Now this letter has been mass mailed to Winston's list, my comments are in bold.

[snip]

Paranoia about violence or stalking from men who are interested in them is a particularly American psychosis that caused the IMBRA law that I will describe below (IMBRA forces American paranoia onto foreign women who date men via the Internet whether they want to be paranoid or not).

It was several highly publicized incidents such as the cases of Anastasia King and Olga Conroy that illustrated a need for a law like IMBRA. President Bush has also taken a very agressive stand against human trafficing, and there also countless incedents of foreign brides being abused or abandoned once in the US which creates a social burden on the American tax payer.

It was recognized that there was a need for a law like IMBRA.

[SNIP]

About IMBRA: Your members should Google the subject because there is a lot to read.

It is a law that older American women wanted to have who were furious that men their own age might try to find younger women elsewhere. They were furious that men might find a way around the paranoia fencing and the arbitary "I may have given you my email address but I don't want to write to you" syndrome.

I hate to burst your bubble, but American women don't really care. If they didn't care to talk to you or date you, then why would they care who you date or marry? And in some circles, they'll even say "whatever makes you happy" or something similar. They're aren't really fuming about guys going overseas to find a wife or have a good time.

But most people, men or women, will object to predatory males taking advantage of a woman's ignorance and bring her to the US in a potentially dangerous situation. In my line of work, such women are classified as " a vulnerable population". This means that somebody needs to explain to them their rights, risks and benifits to a particular course of action. It is impossible to overstate the legal precedence for these types of laws. And this is what IMBRA is designed to do: to inform a vulnerable populations.

IMBRA is a law that was secretly passed by the US Congress at the last second before Christmas vacation in 2005 and deep inside a secretly altered VAWA text that was itself buried deep inside the Justice Dept Budget Reauthorization Act that needed to pass to keep the FBI funded over Christmas vacation.

IMBRA was not passed in secret. There were many people in the Mail Order Bride industry who were aware of this for some time. There were even efforts to petition law makers so that the bill wouldn't get passed. All acts of Congress are documented in public forum.

IMBRA states that:

1) It is illegal for a dating website that serves mostly white males (ethnic dating sites are exempt) to have more than 50% foreign women without being called a "Marriage Broker" and complying with "Marriage Broker Regulations".

It's not illegal per se. This is more about establishing deffinitions of what it means to be a marriage broker. Were it not for these types of deffinitions, the law would have been struck down in court as being too vague. This is also in an effort to prevent some marriage brokers from trying to avoid the law by declaring themselves a dating site like match.com or eharmony.

2) These socalled "Marriage Brokers" (any dating site with less than 50% American women on them) are under government mandate to force all American men (but not foreign men) to undergo background checks before being allowed to come into contact in any form with a foreign woman.

Let's get real. I had to fill out a quick form on the internet about my background. Before I woman corresponds with me, she must click on a button that she has read it. We aren't talking about an insurmountable barrier to communication here.

Another part of the law forces background checks on any American who wants to get a marriage or fiance visa for any foreigner but I will not discuss the anti-constitutionality of that part of the law here.

There's nothing unconstitutional about this. IMBRA merely makes sure that the woman is adaquately informed about the man's background. The woman can still choose whether or not to marry the guy.

3) In terms of regulating the actual hello process, the US govenment mandated background checks include not only running the man's name through the sex offender database (he can provide a fake name under the current version of the law but the next version will soon be secretly passed forcing all men to positively identify themselves before being allowed to communicate with all women), but also include a voluntary form where the man lists whether he was ever arrested for anything (regardless of conviction). This includes any fake restraining orders and any DUIs or arrests for protesting the war or whatever. The man must also state his marital status and the ages of any children he might have (of course, men can and should lie on this form while they still can if they do not want certain information to be given out to strangers).

This is plain creepy. This statement, carries a strong implication that a man should lie or falsify information for the purpose of committing fraud. And it's not like we're talking about giving out social security numbers or credit card information to strangers either. It's about providing enough information for somebody to make an informed decision.


4) The worst part of IMBRA is the part that says that each individual foreign woman must sign in writing that she read the background forms of each man who tries to communicate...and she must make her decision on whether to communicate with the man BEFORE she can read the message that he wrote to her.

Yeah, so?. I don't see a problem here.

5) This means that she can read that he was arrested for DUI 10 years ago and then must base her decision on whether her contact info should be given out to him ONLY BASED ON THAT INFO before she is allowed to see his initial message to her where he might explain the DUI situation (again, I recommend that all men lie on the background form while they still can...but technology is making it so the US government will get better and better at creating reports for women to read that tell her everything about a man's life).

...And here it comes. We have a person that is advising potential participants in a court challenge to lie on the forms. The courts tend to look down on that type of thing.

6) Even for those of us 85% of men who have nothing at all to hide (including zero children whose ages we have to report on), this mandate that the women must read our backgrounds before being allowed to hear any message from us...forces all foreign women to only meet American males via Web-based EMail and not by having him call her cell phone or send her a telegram or postal letter (or just show up which I have done often in the past when there was no time to send a postal letter because my plane was leaving the next day and I only had a woman's address).

Actually, there is nothing in IMBRA that says you couldn't meet somebody overseas without using the internet. It's entirely possible that you can be on holiday and meet somebody this way. But if you are meeting through a marriage broker, that broker must comply with IMBRA. But in any case, you still need to have your background and eligability checked in order to submit the I-129F.

7) This is because a woman cannot realistically sign in writing that she read your background if you are calling her initially on the phone or sending snail mail. Theoretically, a dating site can send a paper letter to Manila or St. Petersburg and have a woman sign an affidavit that they can give out her personal contact info to the man whom she knows nothing about except that he had a restraining order from a previous divorce...but that would take more than a month to complete...so IMBRA basically forces all dating websites NOT to give out personal contact information at all and just force all women and men to get to know each other via the double-blind webmail systems that paranoid Americans mostly use.

Like I said, this isn't an insurmountable barrier. Before she reads a man's letter, she just needs to click on a web page that says she has read about the man's background. If a man has such a checkered past that she would actually be discouraged from communicating, then I'd say the man has bigger problems than with IMBRA.

Thus IMBRA forces American paranoia on foreign women, saying that foreign women are like children and should be forced not to broadcast their personal contact information to strangers.

First, not broadcasting personal information to strangers on the internet, is simply common sense.

Second, the ladies have a prefered way of contact anyways.

Third, foreign women (along with children) are considered "vulnerable populations" and need to have their rights, the risks and the benefits explained to them.

IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It is a gateway law to establish in the Supreme Court what a Republican judge said about it in 2006 "There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".

I always get a kick out of people who think they know their rights when they really don't.

The freedom to assemble has not been violated with IMBRA. IMBRA simply mandates disclosure. They still leave the choice up to the individuals involved.

The book "1984" is about how a government interferes in the relationship between a man and a woman by "disclosing information" to the woman about the man.

Ah yes. Let's see, a man can fly to her country and learn all about her and where she lives and who she associates with, where her job is, how much she makes, who her friends are, etc, etc. While the man can lie or hide his background so that she has no idea what she's getting into until she comes to the US.

So a law calls for a level playing field and you think the government is turning into a totalletarian state like in 1984?????

IMBRA is based on the feminist theory that men who date foreign women are very dangerous...and this forces the government to take action to regulate us.

Some men are dangerous. IMBRA can act as a pretty effective filter to make sure they can't take advantage of people. Other men really don't have anything to worry about.

It is, of course, politically motivated. Not only are men who date foreign women proven to be 7 times less likely to ever commit domestic violence.

That's great news! So IMBRA shouldn't really be a problem then.

There are other groups where people who meet each other are statistically much more dangerous to each other. The Congress would never regulate Gay.com where older men with HIV try to get younger men to meet them for sex. Congress would never mandate that men need to show their HIV status to other men before being allowed to communicate. This is because gays have political power in the USA and hetero males have ZERO power.

Red herring. Congress isn't regulating match.com either. This has nothing to do with gay and straight. It has to do with the foreign bride industry.

By the way, Marc Rudov may have written about all this (Google his article on IMBRA) but he will NOT mention this on TV because he believes that no American males would care about this issue and he feels that the American public including most American males look down on males who leave the country as being "sex tourists".

He's right. Most of us really don't care. The only men that need to worry about IMBRA are the ones that IMBRA was designed to protect foriegn women from.

Marc Rudov also refuses to discuss the paranoia issue Winston describes. He doesn't want to look like he might have trouble getting or keeping a date...he prefers to say that he rejects women when they expect him to pay for dinner.

Yeah, when you have a bunch of embittered anti-feminist men to do the griping for you, why put yourself on the line.

My website is http://www.veteransabroad.com. There is another site called http://www.onlinedatingrights.com that has a very good archive including 800 posts from me...but the current moderator is blocking all attempts to get the first real challenge going from American citizens (some dating site owners incompetently challenged IMBRA by using feminist lawyers who sabotaged their clients' cause).

It should make you wonder about the validity of a law that has survived legal challenges, but most people opt for the conspiracy theory instead. Makes you wonder.

In the end, many in the so-called "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) are not goal-oriented and not really doing anything to try to get court action against laws like this ASAP. Read http://www.mensnewsdaily.com to see a bunch of guys blindly routing for John McCain while complaining about feminism but not trying to get any court action going at all.

Well, in order to have a legal case, you need to come up with a few men who have actually had their petitions for fiancee visa's denied because of IMBRA. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one. Griping isn't enough to file a legal challenge. You need facts, not conspiracy theories.

You might ask "what can we do"?

We could do the following:

1) We can organize maybe on this site where we can raise $25,000 for a lawyered challenge inside the US.

I'm not going to support you, but I won't stand in your way either. But just some advice: You don't really want to fish around these parts for money or guys that have a gripe with IMBRA. The site features content and men that the authors of IMBRA were probably thinking of when they passed the law. You might end up undermining yourself.

2) A single American citizen can do a Per Se Challenge in a federal courthouse which would probably involve at least one trip back to the USA to physically deposit a challenge or to be physically present at a trial which would include a Deputy Attorney General and the lawyers for a feminist organization called the Tahirih Justice Center (see http://www.tahirih.org).

And who would pay the court costs? They could easily be half a year of Winston's income.

I guarantee that any American citizen can get a restraining order on IMBRA within 3 days if they simply walked into a courthouse and asked.

I think you mean an injunction and not a restraining order. The fact that you can't even get legal terms right doesn't really raise confidence of who you are trying to represent.

BUT NOBODY HAS ASKED.

This is because:

1) American males are mostly wimps with zero self confidence and zero goal orientation.

...or nobody has ever had their visa application denied because of IMBRA. Let's get real here. Woman in the FSU are pretty smart at least. Most men that would have been stopped by IMBRA are going to get rejected by the girls anyways. Even before IMBRA many men weren't getting to the point of applying for the K1 visa. Many men come to the International Bride Industry in the hopes that it's easier to get a woman overseas than having to deal with those "feminist bitches". They quickly figure out that it is an expensive and time consuming process and end up washing out.

Let's also remember one thing. These women aren't in a vaccum. They have a grapevine and I marvel at how fast information is shared among Russian women. They have their own black lists. They advise each other on where the best jobs are in the west or what the laws are. Where to buy food, everything! Don't think for a moment that you can fool any of these girls.

The concept that foreign bride seekers are losers isn't just among feminists. I know that the Russian girls have this idea also. You see, the type of man that would have a problem with IMBRA will likely exihibit other qualities that would turn off these women.

2) Some of us are corporate execs who cannot lend our real names to the fight and should not have to because there should be plenty of retired guys, those who don't care how their real name bounces around the Internet or those with common names where their challenge won't be the first thing people see on Google checks.

The corporate execs aren't going to be worried about IMBRA either. You're making up a lot of excuses as to why men aren't stepping forward to combat such a great injustice. Maybe you should ask yourself why most men don't see a problem.

Seriously, just one guy in the USA right now could read this and immediately Email me because he is perfectly ready to walk into a federal courthouse TOMORROW and lay down a 12 point complaint about how at least the part of IMBRA that blocks non-email communication with foreign women (until she signs something in writing) needs to be restrained and overturned.

Sounds pretty easy. Makes you wonder why nobody is doing it, doesn't it?

I guarantee that this law can be overturned immediately if we had just one male anywhere who was willing to use his real name and walk into a courthouse.

Now, your just talking crazy. Legal challenges are very exhaustive and time consuming. I suspect that you are just raising false hope.

[Grunt]

I have enough on my plate right now. So very few men in America are worth even talking to let alone going to bat for.

[MoscowSummerNights]

Announcement:

I have argued with the female "Chemist" on many different forums over the past 2 years. It is always the same person, a bitter female lawyer over 40 years old, and she always pretends she is a man applying for a fiance visa.

She knows too much about IMBRA to just be some guy who has no problem with IMBRA and wants to tell other guys "I see no problem with this".

"Chemist" appears to have a financial stake in keeping IMBRA alive.

Believe me, no ordinary "male" would have "researched" what "he" just wrote and tried so hard to stop men on this forum from organizing.

She is going to regret getting into a debate with me because it will only allow me to clarify why someone has to challenge IMBRA.

Read the following to learn how to argue against the feminist's logic:

Chemist's comments are between the <and>:

<I decided to reply to this in the forum for everyone's benefit.>

Feminists believe their laws are for "everyone's benefit".

<I should warn you that I am a skeptic by nature. Winston, doesn't seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate a letter like the one you sent out, but I do.>

So you are saying that Winston is stupid and doesn't apply critical thinking skills?

It is clearly the other way around eunuch. As we shall see in deconstructing your sorry support for radical feminism, it is Winston who understands IMBRA while you misunderstand on several levels.

First of all, we men DATE women and rarely MARRY them. At least we only marry one woman out of 20 or 30 that we date.

As we will see from your letter, you are one of those (what you call) losers who marries the first woman he dates so you fell easily into the trap of thinking that your fiance needed your complete background before you met her because you THINK that you were the only one she was going to get to know and marry.

IMBRA has two main parts:

1) Control of how two people say hello including blockage of contact between people when one person does not sign on to the Internet often or never signs on to a particular dating site after signing up and leaving her phone number.

2) Betrayal of the US citizen at the visa application stage (neither I nor anyone I know who is anti-IMBRA actually has anything in the background but it is still a betrayal to background check a man without the woman asking for him to be so checked - which is how the law can be changed).

The worst part of IMBRA is the part that interferes with hello. That will be struck down whenever a citizen challenges IMBRA regarding his personal rights (as opposed to business rights) which has never happened yet.

There is a good chance that the visa application stage background check will be upheld in court.

<So>

Actually I am one of the 3 main experts on the IMBRA law. My website is http://www.veteransabroad.com and another place is http://www.onlinedatingrights.com. But someone needs to make a proper forum because neither I nor the moderator on the other one has any time.

I am a corporate executive in Europe who rarely uses these dating sites, but would expect the foreign women to be allowed to broadcast their contact information if they wanted to (websites are not brokers but just bulletin boards), because someone like me might be in their city only for 3 days on business and that might include a weekend where they will have no access to Internet. A woman should be allowed to leave her phone number (a phone number costs $5 via a SIM Card in Europe) so potential dates (not potential husbands) can reach her on weekends and whenever else she is not attached to the Internet like Americans with their Blackberries are.

<So you might be able to fool Winston and some of the other imbittered men here, but you can't fool me. >

By calling Winston "embittered"...you seem to be exposing yourself as a troll. The Tahirih Justice Center (the feminist group in charge of enforcing IMBRA) regularly patrols the Internet for reference to IMBRA. They especially concentrate on immigration websites and forums where they can cut off organization before it even begins.

Just Google IMBRA and Immigration forum. You will see that they go to battle on forums where there is a high probability of people organizing against IMBRA.

They will now lose $1 Million per year in federal funding if IMBRA goes down. The stakes are high.

[For the record, I am a man about Winston's age who is planning to bring a Russian fiancee into the USA on a K1 visa. My I129F has been approved a few weeks ago. IMBRA isn't imposing much of a burden on this process. You simply need to make sure that the sites you are visiting are in compliance with IMBRA. ]

Again, I do not believe you are a man.

And you speak like a lawyer for the Tahirih Justice Center when you pretend that all men must tell the truth if a radical feminist law tells them to (there is NO PENALTY FOR LYING on the IMBRA form before you meet a woman and, although there is a penalty for lying at the visa stage, how you met a woman is not the government's business).

Now the part of the law that invades the 4th Amendment rights of the American at the immigration process is not the most serious problem with IMBRA, but when they ask a that stage, you never had to admit you met your fiance online at all much less tell the government on which site you met. If you are marrying an intelligent woman, she will know what to say and how to deal with the consular officers.

It is not about "honesty" or "following the law". Unconstitutional laws MUST NOT be obeyed.

It is people like you who give real men a bad name. You are the reason why the feminists can walk all over us.

[And all the legitimate sites have talked about it. ]

Almost none have and the one that does actually does NOT comply in many ways.

I will not explain how that unnamed major site does NOT fully comply.

Blossoms.com blatantly ignores IMBRA and does not comply.

I Love Latinas has gone completely free so it blatantly ignores IMBRA and women can give out their phone numbers and postal addresses so they never have to sign on to a site again

[It was several highly publicized incidents such as the cases of Anastasia King and Olga Conroy that illustrated a need for a law like IMBRA. President Bush has also taken a very agressive stand against human trafficing, and there also countless incedents of foreign brides being abused or abandoned once in the US which creates a social burden on the American tax payer. ]

That does it! You would only know about Olga Conroy if you were part of the Tahirih Justice Center (TJC). You are only pretending to be a male applying for his visa. Why else would you have worked so hard to conduct phony "research" on this, making sure that you did not mention the well-known points made against this thesis.

Of 16,000 American women killed in the past 10 years by their American husbands or boyfriends (or ex-boyfriends), you see a trend that 3 foreign brides were so murdered?

There is no trend here. None at all. Men who date foreign women are, in fact 7 times less likely to hurt a woman than their domestic counterparts.

Human trafficking has nothing to do with any American-owned dating websites and, if there ever was such an incident, then other existing laws could deal with the dastardly web-site owner who pretended to be a dating site. Furthermore, feminists claim that all prostitution is "human trafficking"...which means that another law will be coming soon which says that American men will not be allowed to buy sex in other countries.

That is a separate issue, but that new law will also be high unconstitutional and, like IMBRA, extra-jurisdictionally controllling American male behavior.

But you could not even begin to understand why American men would ever leave the USA to conduct any kind of behavior at all, would you? You have stated that you are one of those guys who bought a "mail order bride" for importation back into the USA rather than one of the kind of guy who dates lots of women in their own countries and maybe never marries.

[It was recognized that there was a need for a law like IMBRA.]

Feminists salivated about such a law 20 years ago before they had any power even in the Democratic Party, much less the Republican Party.

After 9-11, when Bush recognized that feminists were some of his most determined advocates of war against Muslim males, these feminists saw that men could be divided and conquered because guys like you like to consider themselves CHIVALROUS and prepared to help women (the feminists) paint males in general as dangerous and need of regulation.

Guys like you are the reason why Winston and others figured that, because they have only one life to live and life is short, it is not worth fighting with castrated eunuchs in the home country.

[I hate to burst your bubble, but American women don't really care. If they didn't care to talk to you or date you, then why would they care who you date or marry?]

Only a bitter American feminist would write this. That is what you are.

What older insecure American feminists don't care about is the foreign woman herself...except that she disappears. Match.com will not allow women from Russia to advertise and Match.com will not even allow people who are in Russia to even look at their site.

This means that, if I am on business in Moscow and want to meet an American woman in New York next week, I cannot meet that American woman because I am physically in Russia and that is considered bad.

Actually, many older American woman cared very much about stopping Russian women from meeting, dating and marrying American men. It is not a theory. The IMBRA law proves that the whole subject bothers them. And not because they care about the foreign women. They don't care about them. They certainly don't care about the right of the foreign woman to decide for herself what level of security she should impose on herself regarding her personal contact information.

I have been personally asked by about a dozen American women to NOT date Russian women but date them instead.

Many older American women wrote letters to their Congressmen saying "My husband left me for a really young foreign bride. Please stop this foreign bride business".

The motivation is outright horror that globalization has taken their positions in American society away. Billions of dollars will be lost to American feminists when men die and leave their estates to foreign women they married.

[And in some circles, they'll even say "whatever makes you happy" or something similar. They're aren't really fuming about guys going overseas to find a wife or have a good time. ]

Of course the feminist groups are fuming about that...and they got a few midwestern "evangelist" Christian groups to relate this to sex tourism.

Republican traitor Senator Sam Brownback said on Vatican Radio that men who date foreign women want to "fulfill their sexual fantasies" and he illegally announced to Europe's women to basically stay away from American men. He can be sued for that slander. But someone has to know it happened and have the time to take it to court.

[But most people, men or women, will object to predatory males taking advantage of a woman's ignorance and bring her to the US in a potentially dangerous situation.]

You are calling yourself predatory...but then you really are not a man who is applying for a fiance visa.

Sure, I object to predatory males trying to meet 12 year olds for sex on "To Catch a Predator". These predators are caught when they commit a crime, not before.

Every freedom-loving person in the US (not the feminists and evangelist Nanny State Christians) will be blocking laws that will make it illegal for people to chat online within the US without being positively identified.

IMBRA is meant, however, to be a gateway law that will make it so, after it might be upheld, a new law on domestic US chat sites will force the males to be positively identified and background checked before they can chat with ANYONE, much less a decoy posing as a 12 year old.

[In my line of work, such women are classified as " a vulnerable population". This means that somebody needs to explain to them their rights, risks and benifits to a particular course of action.]

This is pure radical feminism that no real male could agree with. I have never seen a male in real life agree with such hogwash.

Remember, we are talking about the rights of foreign women to say hello to and meet and maybe date men in their OWN countries or just in cyberspace which is not American territory.

This ourageous comment belittles foreign women and makes them inferior to American women.

In their own country women are "vulnerable" to people they meet in their own country? And somebody in the USA needs to explain the ways of the world to a Russian woman before she meets a man in Russia?

That is pure jingoism. You agree with extra-jurisdictional projection of feminist theories, by force.

You probably also thought, until a few days ago, that the US could and should use force to stop Russians from invading their neighbors.

Now you know better. Russians basically say a big "up yours" to Americans who feel they should determine what a Russian will and will not do in relation to men from other countries (they probably killed a few male American volunteers in the Georgian special forces).

You would feel there should be a law telling Russian soldiers that American government needs to advise them on the risks and benefits of their actions? If you think that Putin is bad, aren't Russian soldiers "vulnerable" to being misused? There should be a US law protecting them. Maybe Putin will obey that US law.

Just what is your line of work if you are not with the TJC? Don't tell me: domestic violence industry lawyer or worse: immigration lawyer. These people see $ signs in regulating males and are the worst traitors of all if they are male.

[It is impossible to overstate the legal precedence for these types of laws. And this is what IMBRA is designed to do: to inform a vulnerable populations.]

The Supreme Court, once it understands that this is a feminist law, will choose not to define foreign women as "a vulnerable population". Foreign adult women can be expected to be just as street smart as American women and probably even more street smart.

[IMBRA was not passed in secret. There were many people in the Mail Order Bride industry who were aware of this for some time. There were even efforts to petition law makers so that the bill wouldn't get passed. All acts of Congress are documented in public forum. ]

More proof that "Chemist" knows too much about IMBRA.

I have argued with "Chemist" many times before.

For the record, thre is no such thing as a "Mail Order Bride".

International Matchmaking Organizations, which is what "marriage brokers" were called in previous versions of IMBRA that were not passed by Congress, do not call the women "Mail Order Brides".

So it is the International Matchmaking Industry. I am demanding that you stop slandering foreign women by calling them MOBs.

Winston: Please consider MOB to be like the N word being used to belittle black people. Don't let this feminist troll call women that.

["IMBRA states that: 1) It is illegal for a dating website that serves mostly white males (ethnic dating sites are exempt) to have more than 50% foreign women without being called a "Marriage Broker" and complying with "Marriage Broker Regulations"."

It's not illegal per se. This is more about establishing deffinitions of what it means to be a marriage broker. Were it not for these types of deffinitions, the law would have been struck down in court as being too vague. This is also in an effort to prevent some marriage brokers from trying to avoid the law by declaring themselves a dating site like match.com or eharmony.]

But I date women online for fun and never plan on marrying. How does it make a site a "marriage broker" if most of the guys just date for fun?

The law is vague. It exempts religious sites for instance. So I can start a site and say it is for men who "Worship the Anti-Feminist Goddess". Then the site will not be a marriage broker.

I could also start such a dating site and say "This is not for men who want to marry but only for men who want to have lots of sex with pro-American foreign women".

IMBRA says that the sex site would be a "marriage broker".

And you want to stop sex trafficking don't you? Considering that you equate sex trafficking with sex tourism...wouldn't you want the IMBRA law to be changed so you don't use the word "marriage broker" but instead use the word you should have used in the first place "sex broker"?

Meanwhile, the American owned sites Adultfriendfinder and Sexsearch.com have tons of foreign women on them who only want sex. They are exempt from IMBRA because their business is mostly domestic sex dating...which is OK with the Democrats. Domestic 18 year olds who want sex with strangers are less "vulnerable" than 30 year old foreign women, correct?

[Let's get real. I had to fill out a quick form on the internet about my background. Before I woman corresponds with me, she must click on a button that she has read it. We aren't talking about an insurmountable barrier to communication here. ]

No, YOU get real. What if your fiance had no Internet access or had forgotten entirely that she had registered with an agency asking men to call her on one of her cell phones? That would be an insurmountable barrier right there. NOBODY would ever be able to get through to her unless the agency called her to tell her that she has to start signing on to the website (in which case she might say "I am not going to go through any more work than I already did in giving you my number. Either give the men my number or forget about me signing on").

Now that so many people use the web to meet, you are forgetting that plenty of foreigners don't bother going online for communication. Women can have their profiles on the Internet, but they may expect snail mail or telegrams or phone calls.

[Another part of the law forces background checks on any American who wants to get a marriage or fiance visa for any foreigner but I will not discuss the anti-constitutionality of that part of the law here.

There's nothing unconstitutional about this. IMBRA merely makes sure that the woman is adaquately informed about the man's background. The woman can still choose whether or not to marry the guy. ]

This is the visa application part of the IMBRA law. It is unconstitutional for a government to interfere in a private relationship without one party asking for such interference and without evidence that a crime has been committed.

["The man must also state his marital status and the ages of any children he might have (of course, men can and should lie on this form while they still can if they do not want certain information to be given out to strangers)."

This is plain creepy. This statement, carries a strong implication that a man should lie or falsify information for the purpose of committing fraud. And it's not like we're talking about giving out social security numbers or credit card information to strangers either. It's about providing enough information for somebody to make an informed decision.]

You're the creepy one. An informed decision by a woman on the street before she talks with a man is his appearance. Online, it is what he says in the first sentence. Of course men should refuse to divulge any private information that he does not want to just because he wants to say hello to a woman.

Before a man says hello to a woman and talks with her for 10 minutes, that woman has ZERO legal right to be informed on ANYTHING about him except for the words he, himself, uses.

You are a very sick person Chemist.

NO GOVERNMENT has the right to inform a woman about me before I talk with her.

NOTHING, not even the sex offender check, is relevant to whether a man or woman should be allowed to say hello.

1) No dating site complies with IMBRA by asking all the many stupid questions that the government feminists insist women have a need to know about.

2) No uncastrated male needs to seriously list every state he has ever lived in nor should he DARE list the names and ages of his children to a complete stranger if he has any.

In "1984", the government let Julia know that Winston had screamed "Do it to her" when they tortured him. She, of course, rejected him based on this valuable information that helped her make an "informed" decision.

Orwell's main point in that book was to say the government had no right to interfere in relationships by disclosing anything to the woman. He predicted IMBRA.

[MoscowSummerNights]

I just got interrupted because, here in Israel, a mother and father and college age daughter just interrupted me as I typed on my computer and wanted to talk for an hour.

They are from France. So now I have a new family in France.

They found the IMBRA law to be hysterical because it seems to them precisely like something an asshole like George Bush would sign.

Anyway, here is where Chemist is responding to what I say is the worst part of IMBRA. My phrases are between the " signs and his are just between the brackets like [ and ]:

["The worst part of IMBRA is the part that says that each individual foreign woman must sign in writing that she read the background forms of each man who tries to communicate...and she must make her decision on whether to communicate with the man BEFORE she can read the message that he wrote to her."

Yeah, so?. I don't see a problem here. ]

Only because you are a very sick individual Chemist.

And what if the message you have for her is verbal or written on paper? If mail service to Russia takes 6 months back and forth, you would suggest that six months go by before you get permission from a woman to send her your original hello message?

Keep in mind that the 6 months of mail travelling back and forth would be just for the woman to read you fake background check (on which all men lie without exception because nobody fills in every state they ever lived in) and then approve that communication can go forward (regardless of the fact that the woman wanted to communicate without all this IMBRA garbage slowing things down).

If you are a male getting married to a Russian, you seem naive enough about the world that there is a good chance that she will put a restraining order on you to get instant citizenship after she arrives (VAWA will make you a slave to her wishes once you are married and she is living in the USA with you).

Then you, with a restraining order in your background, would never be allowed to talk with another woman unless she reads that you have that restraining order and says she is OK that you can have her personal contact information BEFORE she reads what you have to say.

If anything, IMBRA would have to be changed to allow women to at least read what a man has to say before agreeing that her contact info be released. IMBRA makes it all or nothing.

But a woman has the right to broadcast her contact information indiscriminantly in the first place.

Whether you think it is a good idea for a woman in Moscow to give out her address to men in Saudia Arabia, Venezuela or Seattle is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And IMBRA only says that she cannot give out her info to American men. IMBRA says that only American men are dangerous.

[...And here it comes. We have a person that is advising potential participants in a court challenge to lie on the forms. The courts tend to look down on that type of thing. ]

No, I am advising all American men to lie on these forms regardless of whether they plan on challenging. All men already do lie on these forms which carry no penalty for lying at the "hello stage".

The plaintiffs can just say that lying is rampant and IMBRA says there is no punishment for doing so at the "hello" stage.

[Actually, there is nothing in IMBRA that says you couldn't meet somebody overseas without using the internet. It's entirely possible that you can be on holiday and meet somebody this way.]

What do you mean "entirely possible"? Most people, of course, DO meet on their own without an agency. Your fake persona on this forum never left the USA except to meet this one woman I gather.

More likely: Chemist is not a man and, thus, never met a foreign woman. That is why she has all these theories of how things are.

The technology does not yet exist to stop American men from saying hello to foreign women on the streets of a foreign city. However, IMBRA sets the precedent that allows eunuchs like Sam Brownback to slander American men on Vatican Radio, announcing to women in other countries that they should be wary of dating American men.

[But if you are meeting through a marriage broker, that broker must comply with IMBRA.]

Even if it is owned by foreigners and hosted overseas? Even if it is a dating site that worships the feminist goddess and is thus exempt?

Blossoms.com is not complying with IMBRA. It is the second largest international matchmaking site.

[But in any case, you still need to have your background and eligability checked in order to submit the I-129F. ]

Unconstitutional but not a big problem at the marriage stage and not at the stage where you have never even said hello to someone and will probably never marry that person.

["so IMBRA basically forces all dating websites NOT to give out personal contact information at all and just force all women and men to get to know each other via the double-blind webmail systems that paranoid Americans mostly use."

Like I said, this isn't an insurmountable barrier. Before she reads a man's letter, she just needs to click on a web page that says she has read about the man's background.]

It is a total barrier if the woman does not have Internet. Until the past two years, most women whose profiles were online had only ever checked that profile online once or never saw it. They were offline and expecting snail mail from strangers in the US or phone calls. Or an American man would be in her city and the agency would call her and he would only have the time to meet her that night or the next day and there would be no time for her to physically go to the agency during working hours...so the agency just lets the two arrange to meet at a restaurant without anybody signing any paperwork.

Nobody complies with IMBRA in that last respect.

If a woman is offline, nobody forces the woman to physically come to the agency to sign paperwork before meeting a man. She just agrees to meet him in the evening after the agency closes.

Women are not paranoid and they are not prostitutes.

If an American man is in town and he sounds nice on the phone (another way the agencies do not comply with IMBRA), the woman must not be considered subserviant to the US Government in her own country as well as part of a "vulnerable population" and denied HER DESIRE to meet the guy who wants to meet her WITHOUT a physical signature from her.

One agency asked a woman to come sign a document first at 9AM the next morning. The agency employee was late and the woman just met the man outside the office door and started going with him to breakfast. The agency employee caught them on the stairs and screamed "Stop talking with each other. This is illegal".

The pair just kept on walking out the door. NOBODY has the right to keep two people from meeting and talking when they want to talk.

[If a man has such a checkered past that she would actually be discouraged from communicating, then I'd say the man has bigger problems than with IMBRA. ]

You miss the point that it does not matter whether the man has any past at all. I have none and most people who want IMBRA fought have no problem either (one guy has a DUI in his past).

The requirement to sign in writing stops all women who are not now online from communicating with the man. The woman either has to go online (which can take days if it is a Friday evening and her only Internet access is at work) or she has to physically travel a long way to sign a document.

Or she has to find a fax machine in Volgograd at 8PM. IMBRA squeezes the US Government where it is not wanted in a foreign country where it should have no jurisdiction.

[First, not broadcasting personal information to strangers on the internet, is simply common sense. Second, the ladies have a prefered way of contact anyways.]

The preferred way of contact was most often a home address until the past few years as the Internet proliferated.

It is not up to the US government to decide what "common sense" is for foreign women in their decision on whether to have male strangers write to a post office box or call one of several cheap mobile phones a woman might have.

So you are saying that foreign women have no common sense if they are not raised to be paranoid like some, but not all, American women?!

[Third, foreign women (along with children) are considered "vulnerable populations" and need to have their rights, the risks and the benefits explained to them. ]

You are a very, very sick individual Chemist.

But teenagers who chat online inside the USA are not "vulnerable"? Young gay men who come to the big city and meet older gay men with HIV are not "vulnerable"? Black women in the inner city are not "vulnerable" when there is heavy drug-related activity in their neighborhood.?

In all those situations, men have the basic human right not to be background checked before saying hello to the supposedly more "vulnerable" person.

Folks: I have argued with this one person for two years. The number of people who support IMBRA and know anything about it is less than 10.

["IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It is a gateway law to establish in the Supreme Court what a Republican judge said about it in 2006 "There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".

I always get a kick out of people who think they know their rights when they really don't.]

f**k you asshole.

[The freedom to assemble has not been violated with IMBRA. IMBRA simply mandates disclosure. They still leave the choice up to the individuals involved. ]

So you would force such disclosure on domestic sites as well correct? Or at least, if all the Match.com murders and the Craigslist murders continue to happen, and they will continue, you will want a domestic IMBRA as well right?

Forcing disclosure violates Freedom of Assembly. When I walk up to a woman on the street, the government cannot force me to disclose anything to her. And the woman on the street is less inclined to meet an American stranger by definition.

However, in a few years, technology will make it so a woman's cell phone can beep red if the man's cell phone releases a signal saying that his phone company did a background check and something in his past was "wrong".

When that technology is ready, women will at first be given the option of signing up for this "disclosure service" voluntarily.

Do you believe that the men's rights will not be violated then?

I am talking about this happening domestically as well as internationally.

["The book "1984" is about how a government interferes in the relationship between a man and a woman by "disclosing information" to the woman about the man."

Ah yes. Let's see, a man can fly to her country and learn all about her and where she lives and who she associates with, where her job is, how much she makes, who her friends are, etc, etc. While the man can lie or hide his background so that she has no idea what she's getting into until she comes to the US. ]

Correct. She has the right NOT to be "informed" in her own country by the US government about any subject. She can judge any man for herself and, if paranoid, do her own background check on him. Whether this man is American or Arab...it is her option to perform whatever measure of security on the process of meeting the man and dating him.

Most foreign women are not paranoid. Most put their full first and last name in their email address and give that out to strangers.

Here in Israel tonight, a mother and father let their 5 year old daughter on the elevator with me, a total stranger, while she went to fetch something in their room. They did not even think to accompany the toddler because they just fully trusted male strangers (who look Ashkenazi).

You would say that it was not "common sense" that they did that. You would say that there must be some American law telling foreigners how to behave with "dangerous" American men in their own countries.

[So a law calls for a level playing field and you think the government is turning into a totalletarian state like in 1984????? ]

Exactly. Because the "level playing field" is a Marxist feminist concept.

Ever hear of Marxism? It says that people should be able to deal with each other on a level playing field.

If a French man comes to the USA and sweeps an American woman off her feet with stories of how he is a duke who owns a castle...it is the fundamental RIGHT of that man to do so.

It only becomes a crime if he steals from her or otherwise commits a crime AFTER the fact.

[MoscowSummerNights]

Here Chemist answers my contention that IMBRA is based on feminism and then she reveals that she is not a male with a Russian fiance because she doesn't deny that IMBRA is feminist.

If she were really "one of the guys" on this forum, "he" would argue from the point of view of a socially conservative male who denies at every stage that feminism is involved. A real pro-IMBRA male would say that this is all about chivalry...about men needing to give up their rights so no woman meets a bad guy (IMBRA cannot stop bad guys who would simply use a fake name which would come clean on the background checks):

What I wrote is in "" and what Chemist writes is simply between [ and ]:

["IMBRA is based on the feminist theory that men who date foreign women are very dangerous...and this forces the government to take action to regulate us."

Some men are dangerous. IMBRA can act as a pretty effective filter to make sure they can't take advantage of people. Other men really don't have anything to worry about. ]

You are not a male. You are definitely one of the feminist lawyers who put IMBRA together.

The Gestapo always said "If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about".

["It is, of course, politically motivated. Not only are men who date foreign women proven to be 7 times less likely to ever commit domestic violence."

That's great news! So IMBRA shouldn't really be a problem then. ]

IMBRA is not a problem if two people are constantly online. The problem arises when the woman is NOT on the Internet. More than 99% of the man have nothing to hide (because the 10% with things like DUIs, etc simply do not mention those on the IMBRA forms - in other words they lie).

And because the women who are not online have had their profiles removed, most new men who use international dating sites do not see how there could be a problem

They do not see the 10,000 or so women who have had their profiles removed. They do not know what they are missing and what the government and the feminists have taken away from them.

Furthermore, the smartest men leave the US completely, making it less likely that they will need such a site to meet a woman. The dumber men are left to use those dating sites and they will not challenge something that they do not see has actually harmed them considerably (by taking away all women who do not use the Internet).

IMBRA does not harm people who are always online. It is easy to meet a woman who constantly uses the Internet. You will never know the women who tried to make profiles

["There are other groups where people who meet each other are statistically much more dangerous to each other. The Congress would never regulate Gay.com where older men with HIV try to get younger men to meet them for sex. Congress would never mandate that men need to show their HIV status to other men before being allowed to communicate. This is because gays have political power in the USA and hetero males have ZERO power."

Red herring. Congress isn't regulating match.com either. This has nothing to do with gay and straight. It has to do with the foreign bride industry.]

Not a red herring, but one of the main reasons why a judge MUST strike down IMBRA when he is finally asked to.

Young gay males are a "vulnerable population" when exposed to older gay males on Gay.com. Poor women who show up at pornographer's studios iN California are a "vulnerable population" because they need the $1500 they can get from getting bopped in the kiester. Black women in the inner city are a "vulnerable population" that is often beaten or impregnated as teens. Yet no laws check the men they meet before the "hello" stage or at any time later.

[Marc Rudov's right. Most of us really don't care. The only men that need to worry about IMBRA are the ones that IMBRA was designed to protect foriegn women from. ]

Marc does not want to date foreign women anymore. He wants a "successful CEO is own age".

You are saying that the only men who need to worry about IMBRA are the ones who want to date a foreign woman once in awhile.

IMBRA was designed to "protect" (hinder) foreign women from American men who want to meet them.

["Marc Rudov also refuses to discuss the paranoia issue Winston describes."

Yeah, when you have a bunch of embittered anti-feminist men to do the griping for you, why put yourself on the line.]

Do NOT put words in Winston's mouth.

So you, Chemist, are not "anti-feminist"?

Let me hear you discuss why you like feminism. Please explain.

[It should make you wonder about the validity of a law that has survived legal challenges, but most people opt for the conspiracy theory instead. Makes you wonder.]

IMBRA temporarily survived only one serious challenge from a dating site called European Connections. The dishonest judge said "Maybe this is unconstitutional to an individual's rights but I am not granting this is about commercial free speech".

That same judge had a restraining order (not injunction) on IMBRA for six months officially and one year defacto. His restraining order was never argued against in his "decision." Read it at http://www.veteransabroad.com/TRO.pdf. He just wanted to avoid Hillary Clinton's wrath so he ignored the arguments in his own TRO in order to say "maybe someone can challenge this based on his personal rights and not commercial rights".

[Well, in order to have a legal case, you need to come up with a few men who have actually had their petitions for fiancee visa's denied because of IMBRA.]

Not at all. I am talking about someone challenging the right to say hello to a woman without government interference.

Anyone can challenge IMBRA right now by noting that they have to list every state they ever lived in in order to say hello to a woman...if he or she can find a site that complies to that extent!

Anyone can challenge IMBRA right now without doing anything on a dating site. Just write to me at veteran@veteransabroad.com.

An American woman can challenge IMBRA after going to http://www.meeteuropeanmen.com and noting that the site is shut down because American women do not want to submit to background checks to meet French men...and the fact that the government put that site out of operation affects the natural law rights of the American woman to meet French men unmolested by the government.

[To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one. Griping isn't enough to file a legal challenge. You need facts, not conspiracy theories.]

To the best of your knowledge as an immigration lawyer or feminist official?

I know of a man whose fiance was badgered by the government not to agree to marry this man "because he has this on his record"...and the woman tried to say "I want to marry him anyway" and the consular officer than said "You are sure you do not have doubts?" and the woman was tricked into saying "Everyone has doubts sometimes"...and the woman's petition was denied.

The man moved to Russia and is still there. I wish he would come back to the USA to challenge, but anyone can challenge IMBRA.

[I'm not going to support you, but I won't stand in your way either. But just some advice: You don't really want to fish around these parts for money or guys that have a gripe with IMBRA. The site features content and men that the authors of IMBRA were probably thinking of when they passed the law. You might end up undermining yourself. ]

Winston: This asshole is a troll feminist who disagrees with everything the forum members believe in and know. Notice how she thinks that feminism is a good thing and anti-feminists are losers.

She believes that feminism is not about equal rights but about regulating men and having special privileges like knowing all about a man before he says hello.

[And who would pay the court costs? They could easily be half a year of Winston's income. ]

We can raise $8000 quickly. A Pro Se challenge would not cost much and there are court rules where a sympathetic judge could grant up to $150,000 to a plaintiff who has a good case but not the money to pursue it.

[I think you mean an injunction and not a restraining order. The fact that you can't even get legal terms right doesn't really raise confidence of who you are trying to represent. ]

I mean a restraining order asshole. An injunction would come after that. One comes in 3 days, the other after some months, often after a trial.

[...or nobody has ever had their visa application denied because of IMBRA. Let's get real here. Woman in the FSU are pretty smart at least. Most men that would have been stopped by IMBRA are going to get rejected by the girls anyways.]



We are talking about the part of IMBRA that stops people from saying hello. I have already explained that you do not have to have a record of any kind for the signature logistics to stop you from ever meeting a woman who has no access to Internet.



And, no, someone with a DUI in his past who is rich and 6'3" feet tall and built like a linebacker is not necessarily going to be rejected before a poor man who is 5'2" but has no DUI or criminal record of any kind.



Without feminist interference, foreign women will decide based on the laws of nature. You are saying that women get to decide based on the laws of US feminists.



[Even before IMBRA many men weren't getting to the point of applying for the K1 visa. Many men come to the International Bride Industry in the hopes that it's easier to get a woman overseas than having to deal with those "feminist bitches". They quickly figure out that it is an expensive and time consuming process and end up washing out.]



Men like you right? More proof that you are a female lawyer in Washington.



Winston: Check the IP Address.



I agree that the kind of loser who cannot figure out how to LEAVE the USA but wants to try to quickly import a woman to the USA and come under the VAWA law...should just end up washing out for his own good.



IMBRA hinders the men who are already living in another country and who only want to date and never want to marry.



[Let's also remember one thing. These women aren't in a vaccum. They have a grapevine and I marvel at how fast information is shared among Russian women. They have their own black lists. They advise each other on where the best jobs are in the west or what the laws are. Where to buy food, everything! Don't think for a moment that you can fool any of these girls.]



Exactly. You just proved the point that they are not as "vulnerable" as children or young gay men on Gay.com.



You just explained why so many Russian women know about VAWA and how it can be abused in order to get a woman instant citizenship after finding some loser to quickly marry her and bring her to the USA instead of at least living with her for one year abroad.



[The concept that foreign bride seekers are losers isn't just among feminists.]



You could have done a better job of not blowing your cover, asshole.



[I know that the Russian girls have this idea also.]



Which is why the Russian women are online hoping to meet a great college educated American businessman.



So they couldn't be so troubled by the idea could they? Except for the 20% who are out to scam a loser so they can falsely accuse him of abuse under VAWA after they get married.



If you are a man bringing a fiance in, Chemist, you are clearly the type who is about to be taken for a ride under the VAWA law. You will have a restraining order placed on you within a few months.



[You see, the type of man that would have a problem with IMBRA will likely exihibit other qualities that would turn off these women.]



Actually, talking about IMBRA is a great ice-breaker for meeting German and French women!



IMBRA is a great ice-breaker for talking with regular American women as well.



I love the injustice of IMBRA because of what scientists call "Social Currency".



Social currency is basically "conversation ammunition."



More than pheromones, money and the physical appearance of a male, the thing that makes a man most sexy to a woman is the ability to uphold a conversation that keeps her fascinated.



Telling a woman that "that asshole George Bush just signed a law making it illegal for men to meet women without being background checked" is very fascinating to all women (and men) anywhere in the world.



I can keep someone on the edge of her seat for 30 minutes just on this fascinating topic alone.



So men who have a problem with IMBRA will exhibit qualities that actually turn ON women.



[The corporate execs aren't going to be worried about IMBRA either.]



They are the only ones are are infuriated (not worried).



Notice Chemist's dishonest characterization of the fury that men have when they learn about IMBRA. They call it being "worried". This directly implies that they are against IMBRA not because they see the Constitution thrown out the window on behalf or Marxist feminists, but because they feel that they have something to hide and don't want the government to uncover it.



["Seriously, just one guy in the USA right now could read this and immediately Email me because he is perfectly ready to walk into a federal courthouse TOMORROW and lay down a 12 point complaint"



Sounds pretty easy. Makes you wonder why nobody is doing it, doesn't it?]



Because American men are wimps in the end. Challenging IMBRA would not be difficult for someone living in the USA and who is retired or does not have a high-powered job that takes 80 hours per week.



[Now, your just talking crazy. Legal challenges are very exhaustive and time consuming. I suspect that you are just raising false hope.]



Not really. I could have advised the European Connections case which did not take the plaintiff or the lawyer much time. It did not cost more than $8000 and it could have been won if the plaintiff had not tried to lose.



Yes, the plaintiff in that IMBRA case did everything he could to lose and did not listen to me or anyone else who could have properly advised him.



[There is no sense complaining. Half of the people you talk to won't care. The other half will think you deserved it! ]



We know who you are Chemist.

[Winston]

Jim,
I don't know if Chemist is a feminist woman or not. He claims to be a man who is a Chemist by profession. But he is highly shady and slippery in so many ways. He refuses to show picture or website, even though it's public. He makes claims and never backs them up.

Worst of all, he condones fascism and tyranny. For example, my girlfriend's aunt uses threats and fear tactics on her family just cause she doesn't like me. Anyone with wisdom or common sense can see that that's wrong and an attempt to overly control others. But Chemist condones such behavior and even supports and defends it. That says a lot about him, that he would defend and support using fear tactics and threats, for something that is not even any of one's business. That is very damning to him.

And when he's proven wrong, he doesn't admit it or apologize, but just ignores it. As far as I can see, he does not even act like a mature honest reasonable adult.

That right there undermines his credibility seriously.

As to a forum, you can get a free one on your site from http://www.phpBB.com by downloading and installing it, but you'd have to mess with setting up the database on your webhost. Or you can use a forum hosted by another site. There are many of them which you can find by googling "free forum".

Regards,
Winston

[MoscowSummerNights]

Winston,

It is remotely possible that Chemist is some kind of immature alpha male wannabee who caught a whiff of vulnerability in your writings and decided to stick around to bully you and what he thought were "beta males" on the forum. I make short work of that kind of sucker.

But it is far more likely that she is a professional feminist who does what I do to the feminist sites now and then.

[DelphiPro]

Here is the problem I have with IMBRA.

Before I begin, I must warn everybody that I don’t have time to write a book because I have family responsibilities that I must attend to. Unlike the typical “mail order bride� husband that we are all accused of being, I take my family responsibilities seriously and do everything in my power to give my foreign wife and our children a happy, healthy life. This is in stark contrast to the portrayal of us typically depicted on feminist websites.

While, as Chemist states, the law doesn’t stop men from communicating with and marrying foreign women or put “1984-type� restrictions on foreign marriage (though this is subject to opinion and is certainly disputable!), it does set a dangerous precedent in government’s interference with an individual’s personal private affairs. This class of laws is backed by a culture of people who want to snuff out international courtship and marriage altogether, claiming that these relationships are “exploitative� and “abusive� by nature. This is documented in numerous reports, papers, theses and online blogs in the feminist community. Take, for example, the following:

Mail order brides are a vulnerable group of people. They are exploited for domestic labor and sexual services, and dominated physically and psychologically by their purchasers. While the circumstances surrounding the procurement and sale of mail order brides in foreign countries are unfortunate and often disturbing, the law in Canada is unequipped to address the wrongs perpetrated overseas....

"...In Canada we have a well-documented history of civil liberties, including the right to marry and live with any person who choose.... However, we do already place reasonable restrictions on even this basic right to choose a mate: for example, the state prohibits marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity [i.e. it's illegal to commit incest. Feminists like to use big words!]. There are times when individual liberties must be restricted in favor of the general public interest. The reasonableness of a limitation on liberty is very often dependent upon the magnitude of the harm such a limitation is seeking to prevent, and one of the greatest harms to be prevented is the infringement of the security and liberty of others..... No situation better documents the need for such a principle to be applied than the state of mail order brides." [1]

While this report is written in Canada, it typifies the way feminists everywhere, including in the United States, think about men and women who seek foreign companionship. Women who marry foreign men are “product�, and men who marry foreign women are “purchaser-husbands� or “consumer-husbands�. The fact that women (and some men) from this culture are responsible for laws like IMBRA, combined with the fact that feminist-leaning academic institutions crank out people who think like this ever day, suggests that IMBRA is not about making it safer for foreign women and Western men to meet. Does this woman sound like she’s happy with just background checks? Does she sound like she’s Ok with you marrying your Russian sweetheart as long as you fill out a questionnaire first? Of course not! In my opinion IMBRA is just a first step, a gateway law to a future where either law or logistics created by draconian regulations ends international “pen-pal� marriages. To them, your love for your Philippine or Russian sweetheart is akin to 18th century slavery.

Anti-tobacco activists started with “no-smoking� sections in restaurants. They then published the now-famous “second hand smoke� study, some of which was repudiated by the World Health Organization. It didn’t matter. Before long smoking restrictions extended to offices, airports, colleges, public arenas, ball parks and even bars and restaurants. Today there are whole cities that are “smoke free�, despite that tobacco and it’s big corporate monopolies continue to be legal and sponsored by the government in return for massive tax revenues. Does this sound a little like Big Dating, and it’s arrangement with government?

The point is that IMBRA sets a new precedent for government regulation of your personal private life. It doesn’t matter that it’s “only a questionnaire�. Once government has the green light to monitor your dating life at all, it can incrementally gain more and more control, just as the anti-tobacco Nazis did. A law regulating domestic personals ads could easily gain support with the precedent set by IMBRA. Laws requiring nanny government marriage counselors to approve your marriage choice are now feasible, since this type of discretion is already afforded to those at the borders and in American consulates worldwide, strengthened by ever expanding laws like IMBRA. If your marriage to a foreigner needs approval, then why not your marriage to the girl next door? Are U.S. women immune to exploitation and abuse? Do they not need the same protection?

Do we want people to be free to make their own personal life choices, and be responsible for their own outcomes, or do we want government to do that for them? This is the question we all must ask concerning laws like IMBRA, and the future that these laws suggest.

__________

1. Mail Order Brides in Canada: The Unrecognized Exploitation of Women through the Abuse of Marriage (http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/fi ... ieChau.pdf).

[DallasTexan]

Make non mistake about it. IMBRA is Feminist Fascism and the heavy hand of the Federal Government intruding in the Private Lives of US Citizens. Whilst Ellen married her Lesbian Lover, the Federal Government has declared US Men to be Defacto Criminals and Abusers. This is directly attacks our presumption of Innocence. The Feminists and NOW's Legal Foundation in particular are horrified at the rejection of US Women by US Men. Census data clearly shows that the Marriage Strike, Delayers and those who marry Foreign are removing the opportunity for American Women to have a Husband.

We have now more single Women in the US than Married Women. And the Conservatives have done nothing to uphold the rights of US Men. America is a Gynocracy. Marc Rudov's challenge is to stay on the air. He is the only Men's Rights Advocate who has a weekly show on Cable TV. Glenn Sacks has been interviewed. But there has been for several decades no Male viewpoint, only a Female one aired.

I have had less time to be involved in the politics of this issue. And it may seem strange for me to be on this site. I am married to my Second Wife a woman from East Texas 11 years now. But it is my Sons and Six Grandsons who I am concerned about. Already my 17 year old informs me he will not marry here.

I have lived outside the US in Western Europe. Women there had a less angry more Male Friendly attitude than what I have witnessed here. How bad is it here? Well I plan to retire outside the US. As our Freedoms erode, and Women gain more power. We bastardize the American Republic and trash the Constitution. The entitlement mentality infects huge numbers of US Women.

The US TV Media is for Women, Gays and Transgendered folk. Men are not welcome in the US anymore. Except as Paychecks, Sperm donors, and Cannon Fodder. The Columbus Dispatch reports a story of a 15 year old Boy raped by a 19 year old Woman. And now being forced to pay his "Rapist" child support.

IMBRA is a signal of Feminist desperation to keep out non Feminized Foreign Women. With increasing numbers of US Wives choosing to stay home even without children. It simply shows given a Choice US Women prefer the 1950s lifestyle to contemporary Culture. The Mommy Wars is further proof of the failure of Feminism.

US Men have the inalienable right to associate with, meet, court and Marry whom they choose. The Feminists be damned. This Texan is angry that while US Combat Troops defend Women's Rights in Central Asia and the Middle East theirs are trampled upon in the Misandrist American Republic at the behest of the spineless cowards in our Congress.

IMBRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution its promoters are Liars and Sociopaths. It is proof Per SE that Feminism is dying in the US. And of their Desperation. I urge American Men to live abroad for two years. And to evaluate how Women interact with Men in non Feminized Nations. Then they will have difficulty settling for the garbage deal offered here in the USA/North American Gynocracy.

[Chemist]

Announcement:

I have argued with the female "Chemist" on many different forums over the past 2 years. It is always the same person, a bitter female lawyer over 40 years old, and she always pretends she is a man applying for a fiance visa.

I know the law, but this hardly makes me a feminist or over 40 years of age. I make it a personal point to be aware of my rights. It’s all about being a responsible citizen. The fear-mongering your peddling simply doesn’t have much an effect on the educated.

She knows too much about IMBRA to just be some guy who has no problem with IMBRA and wants to tell other guys "I see no problem with this".

I chose to become aware of IMBRA because I’m currently going through the K1 visa process with my Russian fiancée. I wanted to know how it would effect my application or if there were any other steps that I would need to take. Turns out, that IMBRA doesn’t really present much of an obstacle.

"Chemist" appears to have a financial stake in keeping IMBRA alive.

You mean I could be getting paid for this???? Why didn’t anybody tell me

Believe me, no ordinary "male" would have "researched" what "he" just wrote and tried so hard to stop men on this forum from organizing.

Actually, I was trying to help you. If you want to organize a legal challenge against IMBRA, you’d probably want to stay away from a web site that promotes sex tourism. You may want to approach websites that feature men who are seriously looking for wives.

She is going to regret getting into a debate with me because it will only allow me to clarify why someone has to challenge IMBRA.

As far as I can see, you don’t really know anything about IMBRA, but you are too ignorant to realize it. Like I said, it appears that you just copied and pasted some text from the internet and passed it off as your own words.

In other words, you thought that you found something that will fit into your anti-feminist agenda without truly understanding it. Now you are trying to use it and falling flat on your face.

So you are saying that Winston is stupid and doesn't apply critical thinking skills?

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: He knows just enough to be dangerous.

It is clearly the other way around eunuch. As we shall see in deconstructing your sorry support for radical feminism, it is Winston who understands IMBRA while you misunderstand on several levels.

Actually, this is the first time that Winston has even mentioned IMBRA. And all he did was paste your message in an email that he sent to his list. He added no intellectual insite of his own.

He has done this before with various other posts that he perceives to have supported his position. But we never got to the truth of the matter until I started asking questions.

You and Winston simply cut and paste. I analyze.

First of all, we men DATE women and rarely MARRY them. At least we only marry one woman out of 20 or 30 that we date.

Then why are you so concerned about IMBRA? It doesn’t stop you from dating.

As we will see from your letter, you are one of those (what you call) losers who marries the first woman he dates so you fell easily into the trap of thinking that your fiance needed your complete background before you met her because you THINK that you were the only one she was going to get to know and marry.

Not likely. It sounds like you’re projecting. No American Women will have you despite you being a self-professed nice guy, so you figure that you can take advantage of a naïve foreign girl’s ignorance overseas. Except there’s now a law that requires you to disclose your shortcomings, and now your claiming that it isn’t fair.

How close am I?

Actually I am one of the 3 main experts on the IMBRA law. My website is http://www.veteransabroad.com and another place is http://www.onlinedatingrights.com.

I know that you may THINK you are an expert on IMBRA law. But trust me, you’re not!

But someone needs to make a proper forum because neither I nor the moderator on the other one has any time.


B-b-but, if an “EXPERT� can't produce the proper forum, then how can us ignorant masses hope to do so.

Actually, this pretty much proves that your full of hot air. If you feel so passionately about this, then get off your dead ass and fight. Don’t go from forum to forum stirring up trouble and then refuse to stick your neck out for the cause. Coward!

I am a corporate executive in Europe who rarely uses these dating sites, but would expect the foreign women to be allowed to broadcast their contact information if they wanted to (websites are not brokers but just bulletin boards), because someone like me might be in their city only for 3 days on business and that might include a weekend where they will have no access to Internet. A woman should be allowed to leave her phone number (a phone number costs $5 via a SIM Card in Europe) so potential dates (not potential husbands) can reach her on weekends and whenever else she is not attached to the Internet like Americans with their Blackberries are.

Agreed. I would think it foolish, but I agree nonetheless. IMBRA doesn’t them from sharing personal information.

By calling Winston "embittered"...you seem to be exposing yourself as a troll. The Tahirih Justice Center (the feminist group in charge of enforcing IMBRA) regularly patrols the Internet for reference to IMBRA. They especially concentrate on immigration websites and forums where they can cut off organization before it even begins.

Winston, himself has admitted that he went overseas because he was unhappy with his dating prospects in America. Like others in his situation, he has blamed “western feminism� for this when it is obvious that the problem was his personality. But they prefer to blame others and a piece of legislation that doesn’t really have any effect on what they are doing.

Just Google IMBRA and Immigration forum. You will see that they go to battle on forums where there is a high probability of people organizing against IMBRA.

Congratulations, your literate enough to use a search engine. And I do believe that you have found many people griping about IMBRA, as well as many excuses as to why they can’t do anything to organize a challenge. Grunt claims to have “too much on his plate�. I’m not sure about Winston’s excuse. He might feel that by cutting and pasting your message, that he has done his part. Blah, blah blah.

I have chaired on volunteer organizations myself. Do you want me to give you some advice on how to get things done? I would need to know how serious you are first.

They will now lose $1 Million per year in federal funding if IMBRA goes down. The stakes are high.

Yeah, its’ all about money, isn’t it? That’s why IMBRA hasn’t been struck down. Too many people lining their pockets. We’ll keep IMBRA in a nice little drawer next to those cancer cures that we won’t make public because all those scientists will lose their grant money.

Again, I do not believe you are a man.

Believe it or not. Doesn’t matter. My world keeps spinning no matter what.

And you speak like a lawyer for the Tahirih Justice Center when you pretend that all men must tell the truth if a radical feminist law tells them to (there is NO PENALTY FOR LYING on the IMBRA form before you meet a woman and, although there is a penalty for lying at the visa stage, how you met a woman is not the government's business).

You threatened to demolish me with your “expert knowledge� of IMBRA. I’m waiting. Or is character assassination a warm-up exercise for you?

Now the part of the law that invades the 4th Amendment rights of the American at the immigration process is not the most serious problem with IMBRA,

LOL! Well you claim to be a European business man so I can forgive you not knowing about the US Constitution. But this only means that you aren’t qualified to lecture to me or anybody else about IMBRA.

The 4th amendendment guards against illegal search and seizure. If you want my advise, you’ll probably want to challenge the law on 1st amendment grounds: Freedom of assembly.

It’s funny really. Winston sends me a meassage saying that you “demolished me� and I only see you accusing me of being a feminist, making excuses as to why you can’t challenge IMBRA yourself, and then getting the legal precedents screwed up. And from an earlier post, you don’t even seem to know what “injunction� means.

Sorry MoscowNights, but you are NOT and expert in IMBRA.

but when they ask a that stage, you never had to admit you met your fiance online at all much less tell the government on which site you met. If you are marrying an intelligent woman, she will know what to say and how to deal with the consular officers.

Sounds like you already found a way to deal with the law. So what are you bitching about?

I actually disclosed which website I met my fiancée. And there’s been no problem.

It is not about "honesty" or "following the law". Unconstitutional laws MUST NOT be obeyed.

I agree to this. What I don’t agree with is that IMBRA is unconstitutional. I don’t see this law violating anybody’s rights. Sorry.

It is people like you who give real men a bad name. You are the reason why the feminists can walk all over us.

Look, when I go overseas, I sometimes feel that I have to undo the damage that people like you or Winston are doing. You are the paragon of what they think about when they think of obnoxious American.

Almost none have and the one that does actually does NOT comply in many ways.

Bzzt! Wrong. Every Russian bride site I’ve been too has discussed IMBRA and nearly all of them have complied with it. The one’s that don’t are portraying themselves as “social networking sites� like Facebook or Myspace.

Blossoms.com blatantly ignores IMBRA and does not comply.

They’re probably not advertising themselves as a marriage broker either.

I Love Latinas has gone completely free so it blatantly ignores IMBRA and women can give out their phone numbers and postal addresses so they never have to sign on to a site again

So your problem with IMBRA is?????

That does it! You would only know about Olga Conroy if you were part of the Tahirih Justice Center (TJC). You are only pretending to be a male applying for his visa. Why else would you have worked so hard to conduct phony "research" on this, making sure that you did not mention the well-known points made against this thesis.

I got news for you MoscowNights, EVERYBODY who has participated in a Russian Bride forum knows about Olga Conroy. And Anastasia King has even made the news in my area.

You have to forgive me. Being well informed about what I discuss seems to give me an unfair advantage when debating twits like you. I just can’t help it.

Of 16,000 American women killed in the past 10 years by their American husbands or boyfriends (or ex-boyfriends), you see a trend that 3 foreign brides were so murdered?

Apples and Oranges. What about abandonment? This happens more to foreign brides than domestic. Where are you stats for those? Do I have to explain to you what a vulnerable population is? It seems to me that if you were an expert in this. You would know about such a concept and be prepared to address it in legal challenges. Because that’s what the courts will do and you’ll be struck speechless if you aren’t prepared.

The courts aren’t going to care about you railing against feminists or statistics about how much safer a foreign bride is. They will want to know if someone’s rights are being violated. This is where opposition to IMBRA falls short.

There is no trend here. None at all. Men who date foreign women are, in fact 7 times less likely to hurt a woman than their domestic counterparts.

It’s not that I believe this. I’d like to know where you got this stat from. (Actually, I already know, but I want to see how well you did the research). But IMBRA won’t have any effect on this statistic.

Human trafficking has nothing to do with any American-owned dating websites and, if there ever was such an incident, then other existing laws could deal with the dastardly web-site owner who pretended to be a dating site. Furthermore, feminists claim that all prostitution is "human trafficking"...which means that another law will be coming soon which says that American men will not be allowed to buy sex in other countries.

Actually, human trafficking had a profound effect on this IMBRA. IMBRA is one of several laws that were passed. Similar laws were passed on international adoption, and work sponsored visas. All of this was to curtail human trafficking.

That is a separate issue, but that new law will also be high unconstitutional and, like IMBRA, extra-jurisdictionally controllling American male behavior.

How is IMBRA controlling male behavior? It’s not like this effects how we procede in finding an foreign wife. You still need to meet and have a relationship. Or do you think this is as easy as looking into a catalog.

But you could not even begin to understand why American men would ever leave the USA to conduct any kind of behavior at all, would you? You have stated that you are one of those guys who bought a "mail order bride" for importation back into the USA rather than one of the kind of guy who dates lots of women in their own countries and maybe never marries.

Actually I do. And I’ve seen many men who have tried to go overseas to find a “traditional� wife. They think it’s easier than dating those “gold-digging feminists�. They all wash out. Very few of them make it past their first trip. They usually discover that it’s expensive and that the women aren’t as easy as they thought. And that’s assuming they get off of their ass to begin with.

It’s funny, the people that post the least on Russian bride discussion boards are the men who are the most antifeminist. It’s an interesting trend.

After 9-11, when Bush recognized that feminists were some of his most determined advocates of war against Muslim males, these feminists saw that men could be divided and conquered because guys like you like to consider themselves CHIVALROUS and prepared to help women (the feminists) paint males in general as dangerous and need of regulation.

Yeah, it was only a matter of time before somebody through 9-11 into these discussions.

And I find it amusing that you think a man is betraying his manhood by expecting other men to treat women better.

Guys like you are the reason why Winston and others figured that, because they have only one life to live and life is short, it is not worth fighting with castrated eunuchs in the home country.

Get real. There’s only one reason why men like Winston are going overseas.:: Cheaper prostitutes!

Only a bitter American feminist would write this. That is what you are.

I’m still waiting to hear about your expertise in IMBRA law. All I read so far is personal attacks based on the idea you have that I’m a bitter spinster.

What older insecure American feminists don't care about is the foreign woman herself...except that she disappears. Match.com will not allow women from Russia to advertise and Match.com will not even allow people who are in Russia to even look at their site.

Maybe you heard about the scam where a Russian woman (allegedly) contacts a man and falls in love within three letters. Then she asks for money to get a visa and plane ticket to visit him in America because she loves him so much. He sends the money and she disappears to scam the next sucker.

Every hear of that scam?

Or how about that Nigerian money laundering scam? Hear of that?

Yes, the idea that a site like Match.com wants to make their site scam free is a travesty of human justice.

This means that, if I am on business in Moscow and want to meet an American woman in New York next week, I cannot meet that American woman because I am physically in Russia and that is considered bad.

Alright, I might as well tell you that you’re NOT a business man that jetsets around the globe every week. You couldn’t be even more transparent if you were made of glass. And what do you want to meet an American woman for? You think that their feminist bitches right?

You’re not even making any sense! IMBRA isn’t what’s preventing you from contacting a lady on Match. It’s Match’s policy. If you don’t like it, complain to Match.com.

Actually, many older American woman cared very much about stopping Russian women from meeting, dating and marrying American men. It is not a theory. The IMBRA law proves that the whole subject bothers them. And not because they care about the foreign women. They don't care about them. They certainly don't care about the right of the foreign woman to decide for herself what level of security she should impose on herself regarding her personal contact information.

The foreign woman still has the power to decide this for herself. What IMBRA does is makes sure that she knows something about the guy too.

I have been personally asked by about a dozen American women to NOT date Russian women but date them instead.

LOL. No you haven’t.

Many older American women wrote letters to their Congressmen saying "My husband left me for a really young foreign bride. Please stop this foreign bride business".

The motivation is outright horror that globalization has taken their positions in American society away. Billions of dollars will be lost to American feminists when men die and leave their estates to foreign women they married.

Wow, first it’s our jobs and now marriages are falling victim to globalization! The Horror. Granted that poverty has decreased and wages have increased worldwide. But please, somebody think of those poor foreign men!

Of course the feminist groups are fuming about that...and they got a few midwestern "evangelist" Christian groups to relate this to sex tourism.

And if they saw a site like Happierabroad, do you think that this conclusion surprises you?

Republican traitor Senator Sam Brownback said on Vatican Radio that men who date foreign women want to "fulfill their sexual fantasies" and he illegally announced to Europe's women to basically stay away from American men. He can be sued for that slander. But someone has to know it happened and have the time to take it to court.

It’s funny how you claim that a first amendment right could be considered illegal after everything you said.

You are calling yourself predatory...but then you really are not a man who is applying for a fiance visa.

No. You seem to have similar reading comprehension problems as Winston does. People like me are not effected by IMBRA. However, a man that has a rapsheet that outlines crimes that are violent and sexual in nature will likely be stopped by IMBRA. When I talk about predatory males, I’m talking about those types of men.

Sure, I object to predatory males trying to meet 12 year olds for sex on "To Catch a Predator". These predators are caught when they commit a crime, not before.

I think that your beef is that you’d rather not have the woman know until it’s too late and justify that as a constitutional right.

Every freedom-loving person in the US (not the feminists and evangelist Nanny State Christians) will be blocking laws that will make it illegal for people to chat online within the US without being positively identified.

In other words, you want to be able to legally misrepresent yourself on line for the purpose of getting dates and having sex life.

IMBRA is meant, however, to be a gateway law that will make it so, after it might be upheld, a new law on domestic US chat sites will force the males to be positively identified and background checked before they can chat with ANYONE, much less a decoy posing as a 12 year old.

Actually, there wouldn’t need to be a law. The first site that can do this would probably make a fortune, Unfortunately for you, MoscowNights, there seem to be many more people that want to know if the person they are chatting with are real or not, then there are people who want to lie about it.

This is pure radical feminism that no real male could agree with. I have never seen a male in real life agree with such hogwash.

Sorry, I’ll try and use smaller words. There is a legal precedent (which means that it has been previously established as valid in our legal system) that people cannot enter into an agreement or contract without being properly informed of their rights. If they aren’t aware of this, than they are considered a vulnerable population.

Ever apply for a mortgage? If you are a first time home buyer, you get a pamphlet explaining things about mortgages and you have to sign something that says you have read it.

Have you ever volunteered for a clinical trial? You also have to read something, listen to somebody explain it orally, and then sign that you understood it.

The examples are endless and it occurs across a whole spectrum of industries. Based on the circumstances, vulnerable populations can include children, military personel, the elderly, minorities, illiterates, AND EVEN forieners.

Now if the concept of vulnerable populations is hogwash to you, then you aren’t the expert that you think you are and have effectively disqualified yourself from debate about IMBRA.

Remember, we are talking about the rights of foreign women to say hello to and meet and maybe date men in their OWN countries or just in cyberspace which is not American territory.

Like I said. She gets to read a form and click on a button. This isn’t really much of a barrier to communication. Heck you have to do that everytime you install software on your computer.

This ourageous comment belittles foreign women and makes them inferior to American women.

In their own country women are "vulnerable" to people they meet in their own country? And somebody in the USA needs to explain the ways of the world to a Russian woman before she meets a man in Russia?


No. IMBRA has no effect on people trying to meet others in their own country. You’re deliberately trying to twist the issue.

That is pure jingoism. You agree with extra-jurisdictional projection of feminist theories, by force.

You probably also thought, until a few days ago, that the US could and should use force to stop Russians from invading their neighbors.

Try and stay on topic. I know that your attention span poses a challenge to that. But feel free to take some breaks to chat up some foreign girls while you still can. I’ll still be here.

Now you know better. Russians basically say a big "up yours" to Americans who feel they should determine what a Russian will and will not do in relation to men from other countries (they probably killed a few male American volunteers in the Georgian special forces).

I thought we were talking about IMBRA???

Winston, I though you said that this guy demolished me. He has all the eloquence of Forest Gump.

You would feel there should be a law telling Russian soldiers that American government needs to advise them on the risks and benefits of their actions? If you think that Putin is bad, aren't Russian soldiers "vulnerable" to being misused? There should be a US law protecting them. Maybe Putin will obey that US law.

-snapping fingers-
Focus!! MoscowNights focus!!

We’re talking about IMBRA, which only effects Americans.

Just what is your line of work if you are not with the TJC? Don't tell me: domestic violence industry lawyer or worse: immigration lawyer. These people see $ signs in regulating males and are the worst traitors of all if they are male.

Not even close!

The Supreme Court, once it understands that this is a feminist law, will choose not to define foreign women as "a vulnerable population". Foreign adult women can be expected to be just as street smart as American women and probably even more street smart.

Yeah, you deffinately don’t know what a vulnerable population is.

I’m beginning to think that you’re a phoney.

More proof that "Chemist" knows too much about IMBRA.

In other words, I caught you in a lie (that IMBRA was passed in secret) and now your backpeddling by accusing me on knowing too much.

I realize that your worst enemy is somebody who is educated, but take it as a learning experience to be better prepared next time. If you have such a hard time with me, the courts will tear you apart for sure.


I have argued with "Chemist" many times before.

To my knowledge, this is the first time we have met.

For the record, thre is no such thing as a "Mail Order Bride".

No kidding.
But this term is what gets tossed around in certain media. We may not agree with it, but we’ll have to accept the fact that the term is still in use. It amounts to splitting hairs and semantic games anyways. Even the marriage brokers themselves will call themselves Mail Order Bride sites so they get hits by search engines.

International Matchmaking Organizations, which is what "marriage brokers" were called in previous versions of IMBRA that were not passed by Congress, do not call the women "Mail Order Brides".

Of course not. The language carries too much emotional baggage to be included in a piece of legislation. That’s why they coined the term “Marriage Broker�

So it is the International Matchmaking Industry. I am demanding that you stop slandering foreign women by calling them MOBs.

Let’s just call this a venial sin compared to the snow job you’ve been pulling!

Winston: Please consider MOB to be like the N word being used to belittle black people. Don't let this feminist troll call women that.

Hey, If your really lucky, he can even ban me!!

He’s been threatening to do that for months.

But I don’t think he will. He seems to need my approval.

But I date women online for fun and never plan on marrying. How does it make a site a "marriage broker" if most of the guys just date for fun?

Well, as long as the women are aware of your intentions there shouldn’t be a problem. Just do it.

The law is vague. It exempts religious sites for instance. So I can start a site and say it is for men who "Worship the Anti-Feminist Goddess". Then the site will not be a marriage broker.

I could also start such a dating site and say "This is not for men who want to marry but only for men who want to have lots of sex with pro-American foreign women".

IMBRA says that the sex site would be a "marriage broker".

Show me the part of the law that says that.

(I’m thinking that you don’t know anything about IMBRA)

And you want to stop sex trafficking don't you? Considering that you equate sex trafficking with sex tourism...wouldn't you want the IMBRA law to be changed so you don't use the word "marriage broker" but instead use the word you should have used in the first place "sex broker"?

My moral objection is to people like Winston who are sex tourists but tried to present themselves as bride seekers. Otherwise, people are free to do what they want. And IMBRA isn’t really a barrier to do so.

Meanwhile, the American owned sites Adultfriendfinder and Sexsearch.com have tons of foreign women on them who only want sex. They are exempt from IMBRA because their business is mostly domestic sex dating...which is OK with the Democrats. Domestic 18 year olds who want sex with strangers are less "vulnerable" than 30 year old foreign women, correct?

Actually, if you think that any of those sites are loaded with women looking for sex, then I have a bridge to sell you.

No, YOU get real. What if your fiance had no Internet access or had forgotten entirely that she had registered with an agency asking men to call her on one of her cell phones? That would be an insurmountable barrier right there. NOBODY would ever be able to get through to her unless the agency called her to tell her that she has to start signing on to the website (in which case she might say "I am not going to go through any more work than I already did in giving you my number. Either give the men my number or forget about me signing on").

Ah yes. In your world, foreign women live in a world that is free of the internet and cell phones. For the sake of argument, we’ll call it “fantasy land�.

Now, how exactly did a woman get to have a profile on the internet without internet access in Fantasy land?

I’ll give you a hint. If she has a profile and is a real girl, then she has access to the internet. And all she needs to do is click one button to talk to you.

Now that so many people use the web to meet, you are forgetting that plenty of foreigners don't bother going online for communication. Women can have their profiles on the Internet, but they may expect snail mail or telegrams or phone calls.

In other words, they create a profile and forget about it.

Yeah right.

This is the visa application part of the IMBRA law. It is unconstitutional for a government to interfere in a private relationship without one party asking for such interference and without evidence that a crime has been committed.

What you don’t seem to grasp, is that there is no interference. The government still leaves the choices to the individuals involved.

You're the creepy one. An informed decision by a woman on the street before she talks with a man is his appearance. Online, it is what he says in the first sentence. Of course men should refuse to divulge any private information that he does not want to just because he wants to say hello to a woman.

Even domestically, a woman will learn things about the man such as his finances and troubles with the law because she has almost constant contact with the man.

A foreign woman doesn’t have this luxury. As a matter of fact, many broken relationships litter the foreign bride landscape, in part, because the man portrayed himself in way that turned out to be untrue. Or he went overseas like and spent like he was wealthy, only to have the girl come to the US and find that he is swimming in debt and living in a shack.

The foreign woman is at a disadvantage in that she knows almost nothing about the man and his life besides what he chooses to disclose to her (which me or me not be true). This is what makes her part of a vulnerable population.

Before a man says hello to a woman and talks with her for 10 minutes, that woman has ZERO legal right to be informed on ANYTHING about him except for the words he, himself, uses.

Yeah, deffinately creepy to suggest that a woman has no right to learn about a man she is corresponding with.

It becomes clear to me why you are opposed to IMBRA. You want to be able to lie to a girl (like the way you are lying to me) and not be held accountable when she finds out after it’s too late.

If it’s any consolation to you. IMBRA won’t have any effect on you. The ladies will be able to tell that your full of it. Just like they did with Winston.

You are a very sick person Chemist.

In light of what you just told me about woman not having the right to information, you are not the one to talk.

NO GOVERNMENT has the right to inform a woman about me before I talk with her.

I’m not considering what the government is doing as a right as much as a public service. Sheesh. I didn’t even try to provoke you and you’re already enraged and sticking your foot in the mouth in the process.

Take my word for it MoscowNights, the reason you aren’t scoring overseas, has nothing to do with IMBRA in your case.

NOTHING, not even the sex offender check, is relevant to whether a man or woman should be allowed to say hello.

Yeah. just the other day, I heard woman complaining about the evil government trampling their rights to date sex offenders and bear children with him.

1) No dating site complies with IMBRA by asking all the many stupid questions that the government feminists insist women have a need to know about.

I thought we were talking about Mail Order Brides…excuse me… Marriage brokers.

2) No uncastrated male needs to seriously list every state he has ever lived in nor should he DARE list the names and ages of his children to a complete stranger if he has any.

Ah yes, we have to list previous residences for getting loans and mortgages or jobs. But when we have to do it for a marriage broker, we’re up in arms because it’s a feminist plot! Makes sense to me, Homer.

In "1984", the government let Julia know that Winston had screamed "Do it to her" when they tortured him. She, of course, rejected him based on this valuable information that helped her make an "informed" decision.

Orwell's main point in that book was to say the government had no right to interfere in relationships by disclosing anything to the woman. He predicted IMBRA.

Perhaps I’m just too “old school� in thinking that civil liberties and the right to know shouldn’t just be restricted to Americans. But that could just be my imperialist ways.

I just got interrupted because, here in Israel, a mother and father and college age daughter just interrupted me as I typed on my computer and wanted to talk for an hour.

So now you’re a European business man, in Israel who is fighting an American law that should have no effect on you. OOOOOkay!

They are from France. So now I have a new family in France.

Becareful not to get tangled up in that web of lies you’re weaving.


They found the IMBRA law to be hysterical because it seems to them precisely like something an asshole like George Bush would sign.

Yes, foreigners hate George Bush. Ever since he decided to use the American military to actually defend Americans and not Europeans, we never hear the end of it.

So let’s move on.

Anyway, here is where Chemist is responding to what I say is the worst part of IMBRA. My phrases are between the " signs and his are just between the brackets like [ and ]:

["The worst part of IMBRA is the part that says that each individual foreign woman must sign in writing that she read the background forms of each man who tries to communicate...and she must make her decision on whether to communicate with the man BEFORE she can read the message that he wrote to her."

Yeah, so?. I don't see a problem here. ]

Only because you are a very sick individual Chemist.

Okay, so after the obligatory slam on George Bush, I’m suppose to be a sick person for thinking that it’s prudent for somebody to be well informed before making a life-altering decision.

-scratching head-

And what if the message you have for her is verbal or written on paper? If mail service to Russia takes 6 months back and forth, you would suggest that six months go by before you get permission from a woman to send her your original hello message?

Why use the post office when email is quicker. You can actually talk to her within a day.

Keep in mind that the 6 months of mail travelling back and forth would be just for the woman to read you fake background check (on which all men lie without exception because nobody fills in every state they ever lived in) and then approve that communication can go forward (regardless of the fact that the woman wanted to communicate without all this IMBRA garbage slowing things down).

If your too stupid to use a computer, then I would estimate your chances with a foreign girl to be marginal at best.

Or better yet, you can just hop on the plane and go.

If you are a male getting married to a Russian, you seem naive enough about the world that there is a good chance that she will put a restraining order on you to get instant citizenship after she arrives (VAWA will make you a slave to her wishes once you are married and she is living in the USA with you).

I’m aware of the risks MoscowNights and so is she. We are still moving forward anyways.

Then you, with a restraining order in your background, would never be allowed to talk with another woman unless she reads that you have that restraining order and says she is OK that you can have her personal contact information BEFORE she reads what you have to say.

What makes you think she won’t click to read your message? You’re making it seem like a bigger problem then it really is. You’re thousands of miles away from her and it’s just email communication. It’s not like she’s agreeing to marry you, yet. She’ll just click through like we do with those software license agreements and read the first message. And if you don’t sound like an obnoxious pervert , she might continue talking with you.

Seriously speaking, where men are falling short with foreign women is them talking about sex and money in their first letter. They think that honesty is the best policy. So in my experience, men are revealing too much to the foreign women already.

If anything, IMBRA would have to be changed to allow women to at least read what a man has to say before agreeing that her contact info be released. IMBRA makes it all or nothing.

A suitable compromise. Probably the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far. But I think the woman click through anyways just out of curiosity. I don’t see how such a change can really have much of an impact on what a woman decideds

But a woman has the right to broadcast her contact information indiscriminantly in the first place.

Whether you think it is a good idea for a woman in Moscow to give out her address to men in Saudia Arabia, Venezuela or Seattle is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And IMBRA only says that she cannot give out her info to American men. IMBRA says that only American men are dangerous.

The US doesn’t have jurisdiction over countries such as Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Of course IMBRA is going to affect only American men. If anything IMBRA would imply that American men would be safer to date than those in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, since she would be seeing his background up front

No, I am advising all American men to lie on these forms regardless of whether they plan on challenging. All men already do lie on these forms which carry no penalty for lying at the "hello stage".

You know, there’s a point where you should simply stop digging.

What do you mean "entirely possible"? Most people, of course, DO meet on their own without an agency. Your fake persona on this forum never left the USA except to meet this one woman I gather.

Then quit ‘yer bitchin’. Do what you’ve always been doing.

More likely: Chemist is not a man and, thus, never met a foreign woman. That is why she has all these theories of how things are.

Unfortunately, your world only intersects mine on only rare occaisions so I don’t really care what you think.

The technology does not yet exist to stop American men from saying hello to foreign women on the streets of a foreign city. However, IMBRA sets the precedent that allows eunuchs like Sam Brownback to slander American men on Vatican Radio, announcing to women in other countries that they should be wary of dating American men.

Yeah that political environment must be stifling for you.

Even if it is owned by foreigners and hosted overseas? Even if it is a dating site that worships the feminist goddess and is thus exempt?

Blossoms.com is not complying with IMBRA. It is the second largest international matchmaking site.

Well if what you say is true, then there must be hundreds or thousands of men that have had their K1 visa’s denied. In this case you probably have more than enough cases to mount a legal challenge. So far, I don’t know of any such challenges. Oh yeah, that’s right. You, Winston and Grunt are too busy.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Unconstitutional but not a big problem at the marriage stage and not at the stage where you have never even said hello to someone and will probably never marry that person.

This word, “unconstitutional�…I don’t think it means what you think it means! (said in my best Princess Bride imitation)

It is a total barrier if the woman does not have Internet. Until the past two years, most women whose profiles were online had only ever checked that profile online once or never saw it. They were offline and expecting snail mail from strangers in the US or phone calls. Or an American man would be in her city and the agency would call her and he would only have the time to meet her that night or the next day and there would be no time for her to physically go to the agency during working hours...so the agency just lets the two arrange to meet at a restaurant without anybody signing any paperwork.

Oh yeah, I forget that you’re in fantasy land. I’ll bring you up to speed. In the past couple of decades, communism had fallen in the Soviet Union to be replaced by a Commenwealth of Independent States (CIS) with free market economies that encouraged foreign investment. This investment, in part, took the form of telecommunications and the CIS has been able to modernize quite rapidly and may one day, in the near future, be up to a western standard of living. This includes access to cell phones and the internet. Everybody has a cell phone in thE CIS and many have an internet connection. If not, then there is an internet café on almost every street corner and mall at a reasonable price. We actually consider correspondence through the post office to be rather primitive but I understand that some people may consider it quaint and charming in the realm of fanatasy land. If that’s the case, I don’t have much advice for you.

Nobody complies with IMBRA in that last respect.

If a woman is offline, nobody forces the woman to physically come to the agency to sign paperwork before meeting a man. She just agrees to meet him in the evening after the agency closes.

Women are not paranoid and they are not prostitutes.

So we basically have a law that is completely ineffective, and you want to fight it anyways. Why?

If an American man is in town and he sounds nice on the phone (another way the agencies do not comply with IMBRA), the woman must not be considered subserviant to the US Government in her own country as well as part of a "vulnerable population" and denied HER DESIRE to meet the guy who wants to meet her WITHOUT a physical signature from her.

Yeah so what? If this isn’t a problem for you, then do it. IMBRA really doesn’t have an effect until you want to bring her to the US. But you told me that you just like dating right? And you seem to be a successful businessman that is able to fly from city to city. Why be so concerned?

One agency asked a woman to come sign a document first at 9AM the next morning. The agency employee was late and the woman just met the man outside the office door and started going with him to breakfast. The agency employee caught them on the stairs and screamed "Stop talking with each other. This is illegal".

First you tell me, that nobody complies with IMBRA, and now, oops! I guess some people do this after all. I think you just like to make up stories as it suits your purpose.

The pair just kept on walking out the door. NOBODY has the right to keep two people from meeting and talking when they want to talk.

The other shoe isn’t going to drop until they decide to apply for the K1 visa. Then they can say they met through an agency that complies with IMBRA.

You miss the point that it does not matter whether the man has any past at all. I have none and most people who want IMBRA fought have no problem either (one guy has a DUI in his past).

So if you have no past, then IMBRA isn’t any concern of yours.

Just a few paragraphs ago, you were implying that a few blemishes on your background might persuade a woman not to reply to your letter. If you don’t have this problem and many men don’t then move along.

The fact remains, that to date, nobody has had their visa’s declined because of IMBRA and nobody has ever been prevented from going overseas to meet foreign women. That should tell you something.

The requirement to sign in writing stops all women who are not now online from communicating with the man. The woman either has to go online (which can take days if it is a Friday evening and her only Internet access is at work) or she has to physically travel a long way to sign a document.

And if she was actually receiving a letter she would have to do the same thing. IMBRA just creates another paper to look at and sign. It’s hard for a law to get any more unobtrusive than this.

Or she has to find a fax machine in Volgograd at 8PM. IMBRA squeezes the US Government where it is not wanted in a foreign country where it should have no jurisdiction.

Nope, this only effects Americans who have the intention of marrying a foreign girl and bringing her in the country.

The preferred way of contact was most often a home address until the past few years as the Internet proliferated.

It is not up to the US government to decide what "common sense" is for foreign women in their decision on whether to have male strangers write to a post office box or call one of several cheap mobile phones a woman might have.

So you are saying that foreign women have no common sense if they are not raised to be paranoid like some, but not all, American women?!

I’m saying the IMBRA doesn’t restrict any of this in the slightest. If she want to give contact information, IMBRA doesn’t stop her.

You are a very, very sick individual Chemist.

But teenagers who chat online inside the USA are not "vulnerable"? Young gay men who come to the big city and meet older gay men with HIV are not "vulnerable"? Black women in the inner city are not "vulnerable" when there is heavy drug-related activity in their neighborhood.?

You are comparing populations that have knowledge and awareness of the potential risks involved with an activity with a person that is literally ignorant of how American society may function, it’s laws and the rights it guarentees.

And within a legal context, vulnerable populations refer to people who may not be aware of their rights when agreeing to a contract or participating in certain activities.

You need to be more properly informed. I’ll give you the same advice that I give Winston on occaision: “Shut up and learn from people that are a little smarter than you.�

In all those situations, men have the basic human right not to be background checked before saying hello to the supposedly more "vulnerable" person.

Folks: I have argued with this one person for two years. The number of people who support IMBRA and know anything about it is less than 10.

As near as I can tell. The one who’s ignorant about IMBRA seems to be you. And it will be patently obvious to anybody who reads this. Winston won’t admit to it because he would simply have been caught at another cut and past hack job without bothering to read anything.

f**k you asshole.

Now I know that your full of it. You are actually de-evolving before my very eyes.

So you would force such disclosure on domestic sites as well correct? Or at least, if all the Match.com murders and the Craigslist murders continue to happen, and they will continue, you will want a domestic IMBRA as well right?

You’re still not getting it. Match and Craigslist are operating from a level playing field. If two people want to meet, then they can do so in a public place and they both have equal opportunity to check each other out until they are comfortable enough and can take the risks.

A foreign woman doesn’t have this luxury.

Believe it or not, international dating is a different process where it is very easy for one person to take advantage of the other. The fact that you don’t seem to distinquish this doesn’t bode well for your ability to discuss this topic intelligently.

Forcing disclosure violates Freedom of Assembly. When I walk up to a woman on the street, the government cannot force me to disclose anything to her. And the woman on the street is less inclined to meet an American stranger by definition.

Your still drawing false analogies.

Besides disclosure doesn’t violate Free Assembly because you still have two individuals that can still make a choice about whether they choose to associate.

However, in a few years, technology will make it so a woman's cell phone can beep red if the man's cell phone releases a signal saying that his phone company did a background check and something in his past was "wrong".

Another false analogy. As far as a your cell phone company is concerned, they want to see if you can pay your bills. So many of them do credit checks. However, there are confidentiality agreements that state that you need to express consent if they were to release it to a third party.

In other words, the scope of such a policy is limited to what is required for the cell company to conduct business. And they need to protect that information.

But a marriage broker is a different story. They are in business to match people. As such, they can inquire into your past and deny you membership based on this principle, but they don’t. They actually leave it up to the woman to decide. You can’t get any more unobstrusive than this.

When that technology is ready, women will at first be given the option of signing up for this "disclosure service" voluntarily.

Do you believe that the men's rights will not be violated then?

You’re getting ahead of yourself. There is no such capability, and due to privacy and confidentiality policies, there will likely not be such a capability.

Nevertheless, let’s worry about that bridge when we come to it.

I am talking about this happening domestically as well as internationally.

Yes, that’s your problem. We’re talking about international industries and your acting like a police state has been established that is actively preventing people from meeting each other.

IMBRA is as passive a law that you can ask for.

Correct. She has the right NOT to be "informed" in her own country by the US government about any subject. She can judge any man for herself and, if paranoid, do her own background check on him. Whether this man is American or Arab...it is her option to perform whatever measure of security on the process of meeting the man and dating him.

I’m beginning to think that you lack imagination.

What you guys don’t seem to get is that IMBRA can be one way to put a potential partner at ease. You just need to play your cards right.

“Honey, I know that you’ve heard about all those bad stories of women that have been abused or abandoned in the US, but IMBRA helps protect you from that. So you don’t have to worry.�

You guys really need help if you couldn’t even think of playing it like this.

Most foreign women are not paranoid. Most put their full first and last name in their email address and give that out to strangers.

Here in Israel tonight, a mother and father let their 5 year old daughter on the elevator with me, a total stranger, while she went to fetch something in their room. They did not even think to accompany the toddler because they just fully trusted male strangers (who look Ashkenazi).

So what? What does this have to do with IMBRA?

You would say that it was not "common sense" that they did that. You would say that there must be some American law telling foreigners how to behave with "dangerous" American men in their own countries.

IMBRA isn’t telling you how to behave. It is simply mandating disclosure. Try and get that through your thick skull.

Exactly. Because the "level playing field" is a Marxist feminist concept.

I’m beginning to wonder what you think about Equal Opportunity or Equal protection under the law and other concepts that level the playing field. Are they Marxist as well?

The only reason why these concepts are in place is because someone took advantage of a disadvantaged population. Have you ever heard of the Antebellum Period or the Guilded Age in American History? I wonder what these people would say about the virtue of a level playing field?

Ever hear of Marxism? It says that people should be able to deal with each other on a level playing field.

And the only reason that Marxism got any popularity was because of abuses committed by the burgeoius on an uneven playing field. Unfortunately, Maxism got perverted into the communist establishments that we all have read about.

Be careful when you drag up historical precedence. It can bite you in the ass.

If a French man comes to the USA and sweeps an American woman off her feet with stories of how he is a duke who owns a castle...it is the fundamental RIGHT of that man to do so.

And if this French men actually doesn’t own a castle and isn’t a Duke, is it your position that he still has the right to pursuad her that he does? And you’re calling ME a sick person! This is basically and argument to legalize fraud. A word of advice: Don’t use this as an example to challenge IMBRA.

It only becomes a crime if he steals from her or otherwise commits a crime AFTER the fact.

Your French imposture wouldn’t even really get that far. Duke’s have a lot of money and entourages and things. They also have credentials. No woman is going to believe that he was a Duke.

Here Chemist answers my contention that IMBRA is based on feminism and then she reveals that she is not a male with a Russian fiance because she doesn't deny that IMBRA is feminist.

If she were really "one of the guys" on this forum, "he" would argue from the point of view of a socially conservative male who denies at every stage that feminism is involved. A real pro-IMBRA male would say that this is all about chivalry...about men needing to give up their rights so no woman meets a bad guy (IMBRA cannot stop bad guys who would simply use a fake name which would come clean on the background checks):

HEHE. Your claim is that IMBRA violated men’s rights and was unconstitutional. My rebuttle was on those points. Don’t think that you can change your argument to chivalry and think that I’m deficient for not talking about it.

It won’t work.

["IMBRA is based on the feminist theory that men who date foreign women are very dangerous...and this forces the government to take action to regulate us."

Some men are dangerous. IMBRA can act as a pretty effective filter to make sure they can't take advantage of people. Other men really don't have anything to worry about. ]

You are not a male. You are definitely one of the feminist lawyers who put IMBRA together.

So are you denying that there are dangerous men out there. And all those guys sitting in prison or on death row are political prisoners of the feminist regime?

Look, most crimes that are violent or sexual in nature are committed by men. You’re just going to have to reconcile your view point to this. It is so firmly established that you lose credibility by arguing against it.

Now, I understand that we are innocent until proven guilty. But IMBRA doesn’t really imply that. And according to you, it is easy enough for a man to lie to get around it.

IMBRA is not a problem if two people are constantly online. The problem arises when the woman is NOT on the Internet. More than 99% of the man have nothing to hide (because the 10% with things like DUIs, etc simply do not mention those on the IMBRA forms - in other words they lie).

And because the women who are not online have had their profiles removed, most new men who use international dating sites do not see how there could be a problem

They do not see the 10,000 or so women who have had their profiles removed. They do not know what they are missing and what the government and the feminists have taken away from them.

So IMBRA is actually removing profiles? This would be too burdensome for them to enforce considering the proliferation of dating sites. It’s best to mandate the disclosure and leave it up to the individuals to decide. Very few of them end up applying for K1 anyways. So it’s a more effective use of resources.

Red herring. Congress isn't regulating match.com either. This has nothing to do with gay and straight. It has to do with the foreign bride industry.]

Not a red herring, but one of the main reasons why a judge MUST strike down IMBRA when he is finally asked to.

Your original argument was that IMBRA was created by feminists, and then you threw gays into the mix. Well, at least you’re not blaming the Jews yet.

But in any case, for a judge to strike down a law, it must be unconstitutional. In order for that to happen, you need to find cases where men have actually had their visas denied because of IMBRA. To my knowledge, there isn’t one.

Young gay males are a "vulnerable population" when exposed to older gay males on Gay.com. Poor women who show up at pornographer's studios iN California are a "vulnerable population" because they need the $1500 they can get from getting bopped in the kiester. Black women in the inner city are a "vulnerable population" that is often beaten or impregnated as teens. Yet no laws check the men they meet before the "hello" stage or at any time later.

You’re flat out wrong here.
Women must sign a model release for the pornographic work to be released and sold in the US. And it doesn’t matter of the material was shot overseas or not. The law also requires men who impregnate teens to pay child support and they might even be prosecuted for statutory rape if the girl is under age. You see, the law does recognize that poor, under-aged, and economically disadvantaged women as vulnerable populations. Why is it wrong all of a sudden to protect women who immigrate to the US in a similar fashion?

I would suggest that some of these laws is what is keeping Winston in the Phillipines instead of taking his wife and child back to America.

You are saying that the only men who need to worry about IMBRA are the ones who want to date a foreign woman once in awhile.

I’m saying that nobody needs to worry about IMBRA. This only creates a burden for the Marriage agencies and it basically just another form they need to provide in addition to that to create a profile.

Do NOT put words in Winston's mouth.

I don’t need to. He basically cut and pasted your email to his list and told somebody like Grunt to get involved. Then I hear you say that you and other CEO-type people are too busy to do anything about it or they don’t want their names to be revealed. Grunt actually said that he has a “lot on his plate�. Then you advise others that it’s a simple matter to file a motion for injunction (a legal term that you didn’t even know). So we basically have successful businessmen who are making excuses for not filing a simple motion.

So we have men that are the most vocal about antifeminism making excuses about why they can’t get involved in their own cause. But they seem to have plenty of time to gripe about it in a forum.

Why would I need to put words in your mouth when it is evident to everybody that you are nothing but a bunch of weasels?

So you, Chemist, are not "anti-feminist"?

Let me hear you discuss why you like feminism. Please explain.

I’d be happy to discuss it, but I don’t think you know enough about it. Based on what I’ve read so far, it seems that you think they are a quasi-organization of women with the mission to prevent men from getting dates.

IMBRA temporarily survived only one serious challenge from a dating site called European Connections. The dishonest judge said "Maybe this is unconstitutional to an individual's rights but I am not granting thi